m
-* i:fZ~JSi^^
W0'**.
The World's
PROTECTED AREAS
STATUS, VALUES AND PROSPECTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
i
mm
- « "'
Edited by STUART CHAPE, MARK SPALDING and MARTIN JENKINS
Foreword by ACHIM STEINER and JULIA MARTON-LEFEVRE
xtensively illustrated with maps, color
photographs, and graphics, this state-
of-the-art reference offers a compre-
hensive and authoritative status report
on the world's ioo,ooo parks, nature reserves,
and other land and marine areas currently des-
ignated as protected areas. Now covering over
12 percent of the Earth's land surface, protected
areas are the strongholds of biodiversity and
landscape conservation. They also provide a wide
range of valuable ecosystem services: protecting
food and water supplies; regulating weather pat-
terns; protecting watersheds and coastlines from
erosion; maintaining places of historical or cul-
tual significance for recreation, solace, or spiritual
well-being; generating income and employment
from tourism; and more. This timely volume of-
fers a wide-angle picture of these protected areas
around the globe and shows what they have and
have not accomplished, what threats they face,
and how they can be better managed to achieve
the goals of conserving biodiversity and other
natural resources.
V f Vj f_<i
THE
WORLD'S
PROTECTED AREAS
Status, values and prospects in the 2ist century
Published in association with UNEP-WCMC
by University of California Press
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
University of California Press, Ltd.
London, England
© 2008 UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CBS ODL, UK
Tel; +ai01 1223 277 3U
Fax: +44 101 1223 277 136
E-mail; info0unep-wcmc.org
Website; www.unep-wcmc.org
University of California Press, one of the most
distinguished presses in the United States,
enriches lives around the world by advancing
scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and
natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the
UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic
contributions from individuals and institutions.
For more information visit www.ucpress.edu.
No part of this book may be reproduced by any
means, or transmitted into a machine language
without the written permission of the publisher
The contents of this volume do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC.
contributory organizations, editors or publishers.
The designations employed and the presentations
do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or
contributory organizations, editors or publishers
concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the
designation of its name or allegiances.
Clothbound edition ISBN: 978-0-520-24660-7
Cataloging-in-Publication data is on file with the
Library of Congress
Citation: Chape S.. Spalding M.. Jenkins M.D.
[20081 The World's Protected Areas. Prepared by
the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
University of California Press. Berkeley, USA.
Photograph, pages i and lii
Kinabatu Park World Heritage Site. Malaysia
© S. Chape
THE
WORLD'S
PROTECTED AREAS
Status, values and prospects in the 21st century
Edited by SlUART ChaPE, MARK SPALDING and MARTIN JENKINS
Foreword by Achim Steiner andJutia Marton-Lefevre
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
Berkeley Los Angeles London
The worlds protected areas
The World's Protected Areas
Status, values and prospects in the 21st century
PREPARED AT
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CBS ODL, UK
Website: www.unep-wcmc.org
Director Jon Mutton
Programme Director Tim Jolnnson
UNEP
PO Box 30552
Co)
Nairobi 00100. Kenya
UNEP
Tel: +25^10120 7621234
Fax: +254 101 20 7623927
Website: www.unep.org
lUCN
V
Rue Mauverney 28
lUCN
1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 999 OOOG
Fax: +41 22 999 0002
Website: www.iucn.org
Total Corporate Foundation
2. place de la Coupole,
La Defense 6, Total
92078 Paris La Defense Cedex. France
Tel: +33 101 1 44 47 44 24
Fax: +33 101 1 44 47 25 32
Website: www.total.com/fondation/en
A Banson production
17fSturton Street
Cambridge CB1 2QG, UK
bansonOourplanet.com
Production editors
Christine Hawi^ins
Angela Jameson-Potts
Lucia Leade
Brigid Barry
Karen Eng
Index
Jill Dormon
Printed and bound
Sirivatana Interpnnt Public Co. Ltd..
Ttiailand
Anglo American pic
20 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AN. UK
tel: +44(0120 7968 8888
fax: +44(0120 7968 8500
Website: www.angloamerican.co.ul;
The World Bank
1818 H Street. NW
Washington. DC 20433. USA
tel: +1 202 473 1000
fax: +1 202 477 6391
Website: www.worldbank.org
ANGLO
AMERICAN
m
The Nature Conservancy
4245 North Fairfax Drive.
Suite 100. Arlington.
VA 22203-1606. USA
tel: +1 (7031 841 5300
fax: +1 (7031812 1283
Website: www.nature.org
TheNature (*ii
Conservancy %iF
Protecting nature. Preserving life'
The World's Protected Areas
AcknowLedgements
This publication lias been made possible by the
generous support and cooperation of a large
number of organisations and individuals. In
particular, the partnership between UNEP, lUCN
and UNEP-WCMC on protected area and biodiversity
issues has provided the impetus for the develop-
ment and completion of this review of the world's
protected areas. However, it would not have been
possible to gather the wealth of information needed
to cover the wide-ranging topics discussed in the
book without the input of the more than 80
contributing authors whose work has been
synthesised within these pages.
The editors thank contributors and their
organisations for generously providing their time
and technical expertise, and for their patience in
waiting for the final product. We thank those who
also took the time to review final drafts. Contributors
are individually credited elsewhere. However, the
editors wish to thank Graeme Worboys, Michael
Lockwood and Oxford University Press for
permission to use extracted material from
Protected Area Management: Principles and
Practice 12nd edition] for Chapters A and 5. NASA
generously provided satellite imagery, and special
thanks are due to the time and effort of Gary Geller
and Mike Abrams at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
in California in dealing with our reguests. The
editors and UNEP-WCMC take responsibility for any
licence taken, and errors arising, in order to produce
an integrated coherent publication.
The protected areas data presented in the book
is sourced from the World Database on Protected
Areas (WDPAl held at UNEP-WCMC. Thanks are due
to the many protected area agency staff around the
world that provide national statistical updates for the
WDPA as part of the periodic United Nations List of
Protected Areas process. Since 2002 this process
has been supplemented by the work of the WDPA
Consortium, a group of international conservation
organisations that have agreed to cooperate to
improve the quality of global protected areas data,
and all Consortium members are thanked for their
input. Thanks are due to Silvio Olivien of
Conservation International, who has chaired the
Consortium during this period, and to Carola Borja,
who ensured that regular updates were sent to the
WDPA.
Lucy Fish, Simon Blyth and Corinna Ravilous at
UNEP-WCMC worked long and hard on data input,
analysis and preparation of the book's maps, and
Igor Lysenko undertook the extensive work required
for the habitat analyses in Chapter 2. Jerry Harrison
provided valuable comments on the various drafts
as well as specific contributions.
Mary Cordiner, the Centre's former librarian,
helped with sourcing important reference materiaL
Thanks are also due to Mark Collins, former
Director of UNEP-WCMC, and Tim Johnson, Deputy
Director, for fully supporting the project from its
inception. Thanks are also due to The Nature
Conservancy, which generously supported the
continued work of Mark Spalding on the book from
October 200^1.
The project has been generously supported by
David Sheppard, Pedro Rosabal and Peter Shadie of
the lUCN Programme on Protected Areas. We would
also like to thank Kenton Miller, Chair of the lUCN
World Commission on Protected Areas during 2001-
200i, for his interest in and support for effective
global protected areas information and its
application, and Nikita Lopoukhine, the current
WCPA Chair, for his support.
Thanks are also due to Achim Sterner,
Executive Director of UNEP, and his predecessor, Dr
Klaus Tdpfer; and to Svein Tveitdal, former Director
UNEP DEC/DEPI, for their institutional and financial
support of the project.
University of California Press gratefully acknowledges the generous contribution to this book
provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Fund in Environmental Studies.
The worlds protected areas
Contributors
Editors
Stuart Chape
Mark Spalding
Martin Jenkins
Contributors
Octavio Aburto-Oropeza
Tom Allnutt
Rolando Fernandez de Arcila
Mohamed Bakarr
Jinn Barborak
Juan C. Barrera
Liz Bennett
Mictielle Bennett
Mictiael Beresford
K. BerkmuUer
Seema Bhatt
Andrew Bignell
Delnnar Blasco
Grazia Bornni-Feyerabend
Timothy Boucher
Charlotte Boyd
Peter Bridgewater
Philip Bubb
Neil Burgess
Georgina Bustamante
Chris Carpenter
Eleanor Carter
Roberto B Cavalcanti
Pete Coppolillo
Roger Crofts
Natalia Danilina
Will Darwall
Paul K. Dayton
Philip Dearden
Ruth DeFries
Eric Dinerstein
Nigel Dudley
Bud Ehler
Reinaldo Estrada
Simon Ferrier
Monica T. da Fonseca
Gary N. Geller
Jose Luis Gerhartz
Ed Green
Larry Hamilton
Elery Hamilton-Smith
Jeremy Harrison
William Henwood
Enrique Hernandez
Juan Antonio Hernandez
Juan Carlos Godoy Herrera
Mark Hockings
Jonathan Hoekstra
Natarajan Ishwaran
Rodney Jackson
Jargal Jamsranjav
Jim Johnston
Sam Kanyamibwa
Val Kapos
Margaret Kinnaird
Rebecca Kormos
Ashish Kothari
Alessandra Vanzella Khouri
Carmen Lacambra
Fiona Levenngton
Ken Lindeman
Esthenne Lisinge
Ghislaine Llewellyn
Michael Lockwood
Colby Loucks
Igor Lysenko
Ricardo B. Machado
Andy Mack
John MacKinnon
Chris Magin
John Marsh
Elaine Marshall
Ed McManus
Kenton Miller
Les Molloy
John Morrison
Carolina Murcia
Tim O'Brien
Silvio Qlivieri
Jeanne Pagnan
Michael Painter
Gustavo Paredes
Ivan Parra
Arthur Paterson
Antonio Perera
Adrian Phillips
Luiz Paulo de S. Pinto
George Powell
Bob Pressey
Allen Putney
Alan Rabinowitz
Madhu Rao
Carmen Revenga
Jane Robertson Vernhes
Ana Rodrigues
Pedro Ruiz
Anthony Rylands
Enric Sala
Elsa Sattout
Roger Sayre
Samuelu Sesega
Sue Stolton
Holly Strand
Mohammad S. A. Sulayem
Effendy A, Sumardja
Michelle Taylor
Russell Taylor
Michele Thieme
Jim Thorsell
Pragati Tuladhar
Tony Turner
Alan Tye
Carlos Castaho Uribe
Amy Vedder
D. Watting
Graeme Worboys
David Zeller
Shin Wan
Cartography
Lucy Fish
Simon Blyth
Igor Lysenko
The World's Protected Areas
Foreword
Achim Steiner
UN Under-Secretary-General
and Executive Director of the
United Nations Environment Programme
Julia Marton-Lefevre
Director-General
International Union for
the Conservation of Nature
For centuries people all over the world have set
aside places to which they ascribe special values. In
many cases these values have been spiritual or
cultural in nature, but many places have also been
set aside for practical purposes - to conserve
essential everyday resources such as fish, wildlife
and non-timber forest products. Some have been
set aside for the excusive use of an elite minority, in
other cases for the benefit of many Nonetheless, all
have been set aside for one purpose - to protect
something that humankind perceives as valuable.
Over the last 100 years or so the pace of
establishment of such areas has increased, partly as
a result of human population growth, but more
particularly because of a greater appreciation of the
natural world, changing patterns of resource use,
broader understanding of the impacts of man on
nature, and increasing globalization. Since the
foundation of the original Yellowstone National Parl<
in 1872. well over 100 000 sites have been estab-
lished as parl<s, resen/es and sanctuaries by all
levels of government, by many types of organization
and institution, and by civil society
Over the same period of time, our impact on
the Earth's natural systems, and on the biodiversity
that comprises them, has grown exponentially This
has prompted a broadening of approaches to
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and
has encouraged the development of clearer linl^ages
between protected areas and human development
goals. Protected areas are now being increasingly
seen as one of the tools for supporting sustainable
development, rather than as something set aside
from the mainstream.
This brings with it major challenges for those
involved in all aspects of the establishment and
management of protected areas; from the govern-
ments setting national policy to practitioners on the
ground. When protected area professionals met in
1962 at the first World Par(<s Congress the concerns
and issues were very different from those on the
agenda at the fifth World Parks Congress in 2003.
And perhaps more significantly for many, thirty
years ago there were few international agreements
concerned with biodiversity conservation and the
protection of the world's special places, and few
international organizations working on the ground.
Now there is a plethora of international activity and
interest impacting on conservation on the ground.
Because of the nature of the changes affecting
the world's protected areas it is essential that we
periodically make the effort to review their status
and to understand the challenges that these special
places face. This is what The World's Protected
Areas aims to do. It not only provides us with a
status report of our progress in establishing
protected areas, but also discusses their role in
biodiversity conservation, the threats they face, and
the complex issues of management. Importantly it
delivers a frank assessment of our likely progress in
achieving the goals that we have collectively set.
The World's Protected Areas challenges any
complacency that we may have about our apparent
success in establishing effective protected area
systems around the world. There is much to be
applauded, but also considerably more that needs
to be done to ensure effective biodiversity conserv-
ation, to integrate protected areas into landscape
planning and human development, and to make
protected areas part of our mitigation strategy for
climate change. These are some of the real
challenges of our time.
In September 2003, more than 3 000 people
interested in protected areas, from 157 countries,
participated in the fifth World Parks Congress
that took place in Durban. South Africa. They were
The worlds protected areas
concerned not only with reviewing progress and
stnaring experience, but also with planning for the
future - identifying the actions necessary in the
coming years to ensure effective networks of
protected areas, conserving biodiversity and
meeting human needs.
But, vital though it is, the goodwill and commit-
ment of professionals in the field is not enough,
and the understanding and commitment of
governments is also essential, A year after the
Durban Congress, the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity ICBDl adopted a Programme of
Work on Protected Areas. In this, governments
commit themselves to a range of activities and time-
bound targets which, if they are all achieved, will do
much to ensure biodiversity conservation and
environmental sustainability
So the pieces are in place. We have many
experienced professionals working in protected
areas and we have the commitment of governments.
We have a wide range of both national and inter-
national organizations working to achieve effective
protected areas and protected area networks. We
have both the private sector and civil society
increasingly recognizing the value of protected
areas. And we have an understanding of what we
need to do.
There is now a compelling imperative to
resolve our global environmental issues. The
World's Protected Areas was being researched and
written as the fifth World Parks Congress was taking
place, and as the CBD Conference of Parties was
adopting its Programme of Work on Protected
Areas. It sets the scene, telling us where we are at
the start of this period of renewed action for
protected areas. A fundamental message of this
book IS that protected areas are a key part of our
strategy to ensure biodiversity consen/ation and to
secure a sustainable future for biodiversity
The World's Protected Areas
Contents
Acknowledgements v
Contributors vi
Foreword vii
Key to regional maps xii
Introduction xiii
Dedication xv
1 History, definitions, values and
global perspective 1
What is a protected area? 4
The global balance sheet: how many
protected areas? 9
Values and benefits of protected areas U
Intangible values of protected areas 19
International dimensions 21
Antarctica - a special case 32
A global rerview 3^
Figures
1.1 The 'human footprint' as a percentage
of human influence in every biome on
the Earth's land surface 2
1 .2 Global growth in protected areas 11
1.3 Global growth in the number of
protected areas 11
1.4 The world's protected areas by region ... 13
1.5 Global protected areas
by lUCN Category U
1 .6 Global protected areas, level of
protection, management and use 14
1.7 The constituent elements of total
economic value 15
1 .8 The relationship of World Heritage
sites to other types of protected areas ... 26
1 .9 Biosphere reserje zonation -
concept and practice 29
Tables
1.1 Historic milestones in the
development of protected areas 6
1.2 Old and new paradigms 10
1.3 The world's 20 largest protected areas .19
1.4 International environmental
conventions, treaties and agreements,
and associated protocols 20
Boxes
1.1 lUCN categories 12
1.2 Current protected area definitions 16
2 Protected areas and biodiversity 36
Habitat coverage by the protected areas 46
Figures
2.1 Global distribution of protected sites
of high urgency for consolidating the
global networl< of protected areas 44
2.2 Global distribution of unprotected
sites of high urgency 44
2.3 Global distribution of wetlands 67
2.4 Protected areas by river basin 68
2.5 Ramsar sites by river basin 69
Tables
2.1 Major habitat types, their global
coverage and the areas protected 47
2.2 Protection of temperate and boreal
needleleaf forests 51
2.3 Protection of temperate broadleaf
and mixed forests 52
2.4 Tree species in tropical moist
forests 53
2.5 Protection of tropical moist forest 53
2.6 Protection of tropical dry forest 55
2.7 Protection of boreal and sub-boreal
open forests 56
2.8 Protection of tropical open forests 57
2.9 Protection of tropical savannas 58
2.10 Protection of temperate grasslands 58
2.11 Protection of warm deserts and
semi-deserts 59
2.12 Protection of cold deserts and
semi-deserts 59
2.13 Protection of tundra 61
2.14 Protection of subtropical and tropical
shrublands 62
2.15 Protection of boreal shrublands 62
2.16 Barren habitat in Himalayan and
Tibetan Plateau ecoregions and
protected areas 65
2.1 7 Proportion of mountain areas within
The worlds protected areas
protected areas 66
2.18 Estimated distribution of freshwater
resources by continent 66
2.19 Protection of wetlands 69
2.20 Ramsar sites of dominant
wetland types 70
2.21 Marine ecoregions of the world 72
2.22 Breakdown of marine protected areas. . . .lU
Boxes
2.1 WWF and biogeographic regions 45
2.2 Biodiversity consen/ation in the
Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau bh
2.3 Marine ecosystems 71
3 Threats to protected areas 76
Human settlement and incursion 76
Changes in fire regimes 79
Infrastructure development 79
Tourism and recreation 80
Resource extraction 81
Alien species 88
Impacts from beyond the boundaries 90
Climate change 92
Tables
3.1 Types of threats to protected areas 78
3.2 Threats to protected areas from
tourism and recreation 80
Boxes
3.1 Forest conversion to coffee in Dong
Hua Sao protected area, Lao PDR 82
3.2 World Heritage in danger 86
k Protected areas in the wider context 98
Social context and changing paradigms 98
Establishing protected areas 101
lUCN protected area management
categories 1 06
Protected area management as
governance 108
Working with the community 109
Indigenous people and protected areas 113
Community conserved areas IK
International trends in protected area
governance 115
Tables
4.1 Matrix of protected area management
objectives and lUCN categories 108
4.2 Modes of protected area governance ... 109
Boxes
4.1 Private protected areas 102
4.2 The Baja to Bering marine
conser^/ation initiative 105
4.3 Species consen/ation and traditional
resource ownership in the
Pacificlslands 110
4.4 Kaa-iya del Gran Chaco National
Park and Management Area 112
4.5 Alto Fragua-lndiwasi; Colombia
recognizes a community conserved
area as a national park 115
4.6 Participatory planning and
management: the Galapagos 116
5 The functions and processes of
protected area management 120
Obtaining and managing information 122
Management planning 123
Finance and economics 126
Administration 130
Sustainable management 131
Operations management 132
Managing threats 132
Cultural Heritage Management 133
Tourism and recreation 133
Evaluating management effectiveness 138
Figures
5.1 Data and information flow in
the UWA management
information system 124
5.2 A typical planning process 127
Tables
5.1 WCPA management effectiveness
framework 140
5.2 Methods of data collection,
participants involved and WCPA
framework elements 141
5.3 Case studies of management
effectiveness evaluation 142
Boxes
5.1 The role of rangers in protected
area management 134
5.2 Developing capacity and training for
protected areas 136
6 Managing the marine environnnent 146
Management interventions 146
The World's Protected Areas
Marine management areas - a broad array . . U6
Establishment and management issues U9
Tables
6A lUCN protected areas
management categories in ttie
Great Barrier Reef Marine Parl< 155
Boxes
6.1 Ttie international framework 148
6.2 Fisfieries benefits and limitations U9
7 Prospects for protected areas in
the 21st century 158
Assessing the global environment:
the challenges of change 158
Global "blueprints" for protected areas . , 164
Can the "blueprint" be implemented'' . . . 167
Climate change and ecological
networks 171
Resourcing the future 172
Future prospects 1 76
Figures
7.1
7.2
7,3
Relative loss of biodiversity of
vascular plants between
1970 and 2050 160
Species extinction rates 160
Pan-European ecological network . . 172
Boxes
7.1 The Durban action plan outcomes
and key targets 165
7.2 CBD programme of work on protected
areas: elements and goals 166
7.3 CBD programme of work on protected
areas time-bound targets 168
7.4 The role of remote sensing
in protected areas management
in the 21st century 174
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Introduction 177
1 North America 179
Canada, Greenland (Denmarkl, Mexico.
St Pierre and Miquelon IFrancel, United
States of America
Map Protected areas 180
2 The Caribbean 190
Anguilla lUKl, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba
(Netherlands), Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda
(UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands
(UK), Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Haiti,
Jamaica, Martinique (France), Montserrat (UK),
Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands), Puerto Rico
(USAl, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago,
Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), United States
Virgin islands (USA)
Map Protected areas 192
3 Central America 199
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
Map Protected areas 202
4 Brazil 208
Map Protected areas 210
5 South America 218
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador,
French Guiana (France), Guyana, Paraguay,
Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
Map Protected areas 210
6 Europe 227
Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands
(Denmark), Finland, France, Germany,
Gibraltar (United Kingdom], Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia - FYR,
Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Romania, San Marino,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard
and Jan Mayen Islands (Norway), Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, Vatican City State
Map Protected areas 228
The worlds protected areas
7 West and Central Africa 238
Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Cape Verde. Central African
Republic, Chad, Congo. Cote d'lvoire.
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon. Gambia. Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. Liberia, Mali,
Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra
Leone. Togo
Map Protected areas 240
8 Eastern and Southern Africa 248
Botswana. Comoros. Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi. Mauritius. Mayotte IFrancel,
Mozambique, Namibia. Reunion IFrancel.
Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa. Sudan.
Swaziland. Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Map Protected areas 250
9 North Africa and the Middle East 258
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt,
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman,
Occupied Palestinian Territories. Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic. Tunisia. Turkey,
United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen
Map Protected areas. North Africa 260
Protected areas. Middle East 262
10 Northern Eurasia 268
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian
Federation. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Map Protected areas 270
1 1 South Asia 277
Bangladesh, Bhutan, British Indian Ocean
Territory lUKI, India, Maldives. Nepal.
Pakistan. Sn Lanka
Map Protected areas 278
12 East Asia 285
China. Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. Japan. Mongolia. Republic of Korea.
Taiwan POC
Map Protected areas 286
13 Southeast Asia 293
Brunei Darussalam. Cambodia. Indonesia. Lao
PDR. Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore,
Timor-Leste, Thailand, Viet Nam
Map Protected areas 294
U Australia and New Zealand 302
Map Protected areas 304
1 5 Pacific Islands 312
American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia,
Guam, Hawaii, Kiribati, Marshall Islands,
Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern
Mariana Islands. Patau. Papua New Guinea,
Pitcairn, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau,
Tonga, Tuvalu, United States Minor Outlying
Islands, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna
Map Protected areas 314
Bibliography 320
Index 339
Key to regional maps
National protected areas
nm • lUCN cateroties la-VI
HM • No category
International protected areas
^ • Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar)
^ • World Heritage Sites
^ • UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves IMABI
The World's Protected Areas
ntroduction
With the increasing recognition of the importance
of protected areas, it is timely to review their global
status, not only in terms of location and extent but
also of the range of issues that are critical in
understanding their values, threats, management,
and future prospects. There are many thousands
of publications on protected areas, ranging from
site-specific assessments of design and manage-
ment; through broader issues of species and
ecosystem conservation, the involvement of local
and indigenous peoples, and the design of
protected areas networks; to global issues
addressing extent, status, threats, and manage-
ment effectiveness. The purpose of this book is to
present, in one volume, a comprehensive overview
of the worlds protected areas in relation to these
and many other issues, not only highlighting their
importance to humanity but also examining the
critical issues that will determine their relevance
and long-term viability.
The World's Protected Are^s is a review of the
current state of knowledge, especially in relation to
regional and global numbers and extent. The rapid
growth in the number of conservation areas in the
latter part of the 20th century, and the commit-
ments made at the Vth World Parks Congress in
2003. suggests that governments and communities
remain committed to establishing further protected
areas. The critical issues and imperatives con-
cerning the role of protected areas in conserving
biodiversity, the effectiveness of their management,
and their relationship to local-to-global develop-
ment agendas will also intensify. This book
therefore not only provides an overview of the
current global protected areas situation but will
also provide a benchmark for future evaluation of
how well we have addressed these critical issues
and imperatives. The book is made up of the
following chapters:
O Chapter 1 provides an overview of the develop-
ment of protected areas; it discusses current
definitions; provides global statistics on the
numbers, extent, and types of protected areas;
considers the values of protected areas and
describes the various international efforts that
strengthen the global protected areas estate.
G Chapter 2 examines the critical role of
protected areas in conserving global biodiv-
ersity, provides an analysis of the extent of
protection provided to the worlds terrestrial
and marine habitats, and highlights the gaps
in the global network of protected areas.
G Chapter 3 reviews the diverse range of threats
confronting protected areas in virtually all
areas of the world.
3 Chapter i deals with the issues associated
with establishing and managing protected
areas and the importance of governance.
G Chapter 5 looks at management planning, the
management of threats, and the evaluation of
management effectiveness.
3 Chapter 6 reviews the special management
issues and opportunities relating to the
marine environment, the realms in which
most work needs to be done to develop a
global marine protected areas network.
3 Chapter 7 offers an assessment of what the
future may hold for protected areas in the 21st
century, examining the key issues of their
roles and values, conservation effectiveness,
resourcing, and the need for political
commitment to ensure that protected areas
achieve their goals.
3 The Regional Analysis provides an assessment
of the status of protected areas, and a review
of major issues and prospects, by the regions
of the world as defined by the lUCN World
Commission on Protected Areas.
The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAl is
compiled from multiple sources and is the most
comprehensive global dataset on marine and
terrestrial protected areas available. It is a joint
venture of UNEP and lUCN, produced by UNEP-
WCMC and the lUCN World Commission on Pro-
tected Areas IIUCN-WCPAI working with govern-
ments and collaborating NGOs. The WDPA is
continually updated. The regional protected areas
maps and statistics have been produced using the
2004 and 2006 editions of the WDPA.
The World's Protected Areas
Dedication
This publication is dedicated to those whose commitment makes protected areas around the world a reality
on the ground or in the seas. These are the field staff - the superintendents, field scientists and, above all,
the rangers and wardens. Most protected areas around the world are under-resourced and under-staffed,
and many lie in conflict zones, only surviving because of the devotion of field staff that protect the values of
these special places against frequently overwhelming odds.
Every year field staff are l<illed or injured while protecting conservation areas that are now almost
universally recognised as having a critical role in our survival, and the survival of the millions of species with
which we share this planet. We recognize their dedication and commitment to ensuring that collectively we
can achieve a truly effective global protected areas network in the 21st century.
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
Chapter 1
History, Definitions, Values and
Global Perspective
Contributors: S- Ctiape; Values and benefits of protected areas: M. Spalding, M. Taylor and A. Putney: World
hieritage Convention: N. Ishwaran, J. Thorsell, S. Chape: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: D. Blasco: Biosphere
reserves: J. Robertson Vernhes and P. Bridgewater; Transboundary protected areas, biological corridors and
networl<s: J. Harrison; Antarctica: E. McManus.
The human desire to protect and revere special
places is as old as our species, but it has become
even more important as human impact on the
planet continues its relentless change of natural
ecosystems and destruction of biological diversity.
The global population now exceeds 6 billion people
and is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Not
surprisingly, mapping of the 'human footprint' on
the planet has concluded that more than 80 percent
of the Earth's land surface is directly influenced by
humans (Sanderson et al., 20021 (see Figure 1.11.
We already use an estimated AO percent of the
Earth's net primary productivity (Rojstaczer,
Sterling, and Moore, 20011, 35 percent of oceanic
shelf productivity (Pauly and Christensen, 19951,
and 60 percent of freshwater runoff IPostel, Daily,
and Ehrlich, 19961. As well as natural resource con-
sumption, human-induced climate change is
bringing changes to temperature, precipitation, sea
levels, and the distribution and intensity of extreme
events to all corners of the globe, and threatening
much greater change in the coming decades.
As a result, remaining natural landscapes are
rapidly being modified, and the Earths biological
diversity Ibiodiversityl continues to decline at an
alarming rate. However, the factors driving this
modification and change are complex, and not only
related to the simple equation of increasing human
numbers. Global poverty and inequitable develop-
ment are fundamental drivers for negative environ-
mental change and loss of natural landscapes,
species, and the benefits that we derive from them.
The economic, health, and educational disparities
between wealthy and poor countries continue to
grow, with increasing pressure on limited resources
and living space. The eminent American scientist
E.O.Wilson has observed: 'for the entire world
population to enjoy US consumption with existing
technology, the present-day human population
would have to spread itself over two more planet
Earths' (Wilson, 20001. With such enormous pres-
sure on the planet, what are our chances of cons-
erving the natural world in which we have evolved?
Fortunately, recognition of the need to protect
the world's remaining natural places is almost
universal among the nations of the Earth. We now
have thousands of nature reserves, national parks,
protected landscapes, and other forms of desig-
nated conservation areas. There are now more than
1 000 such designations that we collectively refer to
as 'protected areas.' Protected areas are not only
the last strongholds of nature; they also have a vital
role in providing humankind with a range of valuable
ecological services. In the face of the human-
induced global change that has occurred since the
Industrial Revolution, governments, organizations,
and community groups recognize that if concerted
action is not taken, only scattered remnants of
natural ecosystems will remain, and most of those
will be in the most inhospitable and economically
unproductive areas of the planet. This recognition
has been reflected in a number of international and
regional environmental and conservation agree-
ments over the past two decades and, more
importantly, by the decisions of governments to
establish or expand national protected area
systems. As well as formal intergovernmental
and governmental responses, non-governmental
organizations [NGOsl and community groups
have become instigators of conservation action.
The world's protected areas
FIGURE 1.1: THE "HUMAN FOOTPRINT" AS A PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN
INFLUENCE IN EVERY BIOME ON THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE
Derived from "a quantitative evaluation of human influence on the land surface,
based on geographic data describing human population density, land trans-
formation, access, and electrical powder infrastructure, and normalized to reflect
the continuum of human influence across each terrestrial biome defined within
biogeographic realms". Source Sanderson elal. 2002
including tine establishment and management of
protected areas.
In September 2003, more than 3 000 people
from 157 countries gathered in Durban, South
Africa, for the Fifth World Parks Congress. It was
the largest and most diverse gathering in history of
people concerned with conservation of the worlds
natural heritage through the establishment and
management of protected areas. The Congress was
a milestone in a process that has seen the devel-
opment of the modern conservation movement,
initiated by the establishment of the first national
parks and reserves in the 19th century. At the time
of the meeting the worlds protected area network,
which is still growing, had exceeded 100 000 sites,
covering 12.5 percent of the Earth's land surface,
although only a tiny fraction (0.5 percent) of the
ocean surface IChape et ai, 2003).
In terms of terrestrial area, protected areas
are now one of the most important land-use
allocations on the planet. However, while this
concrete commitment to global conservation is a
remarkable achievement, we must also recognize
that setting aside conservation areas is just the
beginning - effective management action and
provision of financial and technical resources are
essential if conservation objectives are to be
achieved. Moreover, we also need to ensure that the
location and extent of protected areas effectively
conserves the Earth's remaining biodiversity. The
existing protected area system still falls short of
this objective; a recent study (Rodrigues etal., 20031
identified more than 700 threatened species
believed not to occur in any protected area.
The Durban Congress adopted wide-ranging
recommendations to improve the coverage and
management of protected areas, and reinforced the
need for a spectrum of different types of protected
areas to effectively conserve natural and cultural
values. The outcomes of Durban were supported in
February 2004 by the Seventh Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties lCoP71 to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBDI (SCBD, 200A). The CBD
CoP7 not only adopted a Programme of Work on
Protected Areas to be implemented by the 188
Parties to the Convention, but also endorsed the key
role of protected areas as indicators for measuring
success in significantly reducing the loss of global
biodiversity by 2010. This latter target is closely
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
S Chape
Hin Namno National Protected Area, Lao PDR.
The world's protected areas
associated with two other intergovernmental
initiatives: the Plan of Implementation of the World
Summit on Sustainable Development and the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Thus, a
critical link has been made at international policy
level between development and protected areas.
WHAT IS A PROTECTED AREA?
An old but evolving concept
The concept and practice of setting aside natural
and semi-natural areas for protection, special or
restricted use have a long history Isee Table 1.11.
From 300 BC. the Mauryan kings of northern India
established reserves to protect forests, elephants,
fish, and wildlife IGrove, 1995; Dhammika, 19931,
and the Al Hema form of land management,
practiced for at least 2 000 years across the Ivliddle
East, set aside large tracts of rangeland to prevent
overgrazing. Similarly in Oceania, placing
permanent and seasonal restrictions on access to
certain areas and/or resources, such as reefs,
lagoons and certain marine species, was practiced
extensively. Often these historic reservations and
prohibitions, such as the hunting reserves of Europe
and India, were for the benefit of a ruling elite, in
some ways, this approach was replicated, in the
19th century, in the establishment of the large
game reserves in southern and eastern Africa by
European colonial powers; for example, Sabi Game
Reserve in South Africa Hater to become Kruger
National Park) was established by President Kruger
in 1892.
As the human population continues to grow,
and our ecological impact on the planet's resources
increases, our living space is reduced and natural
resources are depleted. The phrase 'island Earth' is
no longer a poetic metaphor - it describes the hard
reality that faces humankind, as it did historically for
many societies who had to manage their
populations and natural resources within physically
limiting conditions (for example, on atolls and in
Arctic and desert environments). We should not be
surprised, therefore, that there has been increasing
awareness of the need to conserve nature. The first
'modern' protected areas were often inspired by the
very clear ecological impacts of Western conquest
and colonization on Africa, the Americas, Asia,
Australia, and numerous oceanic islands IGrove,
19951. Parks were established to preserve
permanent remnants of the local ecosystems that
many of these colonists saw disappearing under
cities, farms, and plantations.
Yellowstone National Park in the USA is
recognized as the first of these new parks.
Established in 1872, the area was reserved and
withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or sale...
and dedicated and set apart as a public park or
pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment
of the people' (from the establishing Act of
Congress). Declaration of the Royal National Park
in Australia followed in 1879, with other well-
known parks established in the closing decades of
the 19th century and the early ones of the 20th
century. These include New Zealand's Tongariro
National Park (1894), Canada's Banff National
Park (1898), Yosemite National Park in the USA
(1890, although the original federal grant was
signed in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln), and the
Gorilla Sanctuary in the then Belgian Congo
11925). Other protected areas were established in
Asia and other parts of Africa.
In Europe early reserves included those in
Laponia in Sweden (1909), the Swiss National Park
(19U), and the Bialowieza Forest in Poland 11947).
The dominant underlying philosophy in establishing
protected areas until the second half of the 20th
century, especially in the USA and other 'new world'
countries, remained the preservation of "nature
islands of solitude and repose [as] an indispensable
ingredient of modern civilization" (Udall, 1964),
while recognizing their potential economic values
for tourism and for science. Unfortunately, in quite
a few cases these early national parks were
established in areas where indigenous peoples had
been removed or were excluded.
In his keynote address to the First World
Conference on National Parks held in Seattle,
Washington, in 1962, Stewart Udall, Umited States
Secretary of the Interior, advised: So great is the
power of men and nations to enlarge the machine-
dominated portion of the world that it is not an
exaggeration to say that few opportunities for
conservation projects of grand scope will remain
by the year 2000 ...with few exceptions the places
of superior scenic beauty, the unspoiled land-
scapes, the spacious refuges for wildlife, the
nature parks and nature reserves of significant
size and grandeur that our generation saves will
be all that is preserved. We are the architects who
must design the remaining temples; those
who follow will have the mundane tasks of
management and housekeeping.' (Udall, 1964).
In 1962 there were almost 10 000 parks and
reserves worldwide; 45 years later the World
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
Database on Protected Areas, maintained by the
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
holds information on more than 100 000 protected
sites. In addition, there are novi/ almost 5 000
internationally designated areas, including World
Heritage sites, biosphere reserves and Ramsar
sites. In some ways Udall was correct in his assess-
ment of the prospects for global conservation. Many
of the large, high conservation value areas of the
globe were protected by the early 1990s. Yet the
number of designated areas has continued to grow
and we know that there is still much more to
conserve. The average size of protected areas has
been decreasing as newer sites tend to be much
smaller However, even here there are exceptions
with, for example, Brazil recently adding large areas
of the Amazon to its protected area system. The
coverage of protected areas also varies between
different biomes, with some, such as marine and
freshwater, being particularly poorly represented
Isee Chapter 2).
Of course the function of protected areas, and
their role in wider society, has changed over time.
As McNeely 11998] has noted: 'Protected areas are
a cultural response to perceived threats to nature.
Because society is constantly changing, so too are
social perspectives on protected areas and the
values that they are established to conserve.' The
current concept of a protected area has evolved
significantly from that originally proposed by 19th-
century American and European visionaries.
What was not apparent even through the
1950s and 1960s was the evolution of the protected
area concept and the repackaging' of conservation
concerns under the umbrellas of sustainable
development and biodiversity that would occur
from the 1970s through to the 1990s. This was
heavily influenced by a number of international
events and agreements, including: the Stockholm
Conference on Environment and the adoption of the
World Heritage Convention in 1972; the 1980 World
Conservation Strategy; the 1992 UN Conference on
Environment and Development, and the adoption of
the CBD that same year. Another critical factor has
been the expansion of the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPAl network (originally formed
as the Commission on National Parks in 19581, and
the technical and scientific outputs from World
Parks Congresses held in 1972, 1982, 1992, and
2003. All of these factors have resulted in:
n the formulation of specific protected area
management categories that recognize the
scope and values of different approaches to
conserving natural areas;
CJ 'mainstreaming' of conservation concerns into
development agendas;
3 rethinking the role of protected areas vis-a-vis
conservation and sustainable human use;
3 recognition of the importance of cultural
values;
3 recognition of the role of protected areas as
key indicators for assessing achievement of
global sustainable development objectives,
and as contributing measures for combating
desertification, climate change, and loss of
genetic diversity.
In a sense, we have come full circle in recognizing
Yosemite National Park,
USA - one of the world's
first protected areas.
The world's protected areas
TABLE 1.1: HISTORIC MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS
10 000 BC As agriculture began to transform ttie relationstiip between people and nature, local communities recognized specific
sites as "sacred", and protected them from certain human uses. Applied differently in different places over the
subsequent millennia, the concept was a widespread practical measure that people found beneficial in both material
and spiritual ways.
252 BC Emperor Asoka of India established protected areas for mammals, birds, fish, and forests, the earliest recorded areas
where a government protected certain resources.
684 AD First Indonesian nature reserve was established by order of the King of Snvijaya, on the island of Sumatra. Sumatra is
now recognized as one of the world's centers of megadiversity. with numerous protected areas - the major sites
comprising the recently declared 25 000 km^ Tropical Rainforest of Sumatra World Heritage site.
1079 William the Conqueror claimed the New Forest [Englandl as a royal hunting reserve and protected it against illegal
harvesting from rural people; poaching became a major law enforcement issue, but timber from the forest was
essential to England's war efforts in the 17-19th centuries. Today the New Forest is still a valued protected area and
became the UK's newest national park in 2005.
1865 Yosemite ICalitornial was established by US Congress as effectively the first of a new national-level model of protected
areas; Yellowstone 118721 was first to be called a national park.
1882 El Chico National Park established in Mexico, the first in Latin America.
1 903 The Society for the Protection of the Wild Fauna of the Empire was established in the UK, the first non-governmental
organization devoted to international conservation - now known as Fauna and Flora International IFFI). Hundreds of
other civil society conservation organizations now support protected areas in all parts of the world.
1925 First "modern" national park was established in Asia lAngkor Wat, Cambodial.
1926 South Africa's Kruger National Park was established.
1934 Argentina's Iguazu National Park was established.
1948 lUCN - The World Conservation Union was founded las the International Union for Protection of Nature! as a means of
promoting conservation worldwide, but especially in the former colonies gaining independence in the post-war world,
based on the prediction of significant habitat loss if nothing were done. The establishment of protected areas has
always been seen as an important area of focus.
1961 WWFwas set up las the World Wildflife Fund] as a new international non-governmental organization to mobilize
support for conservation, especially from the general public. This marked the beginning of an era of growing funding
for international conservation.
1962 The First World Conference on National Parks, in Seattle, Washington, began a more formal worldwide movement in
support of protected areas, called for a UN List of Protected Areas, and recommended a category system. Prior to this,
each country kept its own records, so nobody knew the extent of the world's protected area system.
1963 College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka, Tanzania was established. By 2003, more than 4 200 Africans had
graduated from Mweka.
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
the spectrum of values and benefits provided by
lands and waters protected from unsustainable use
and despoliation - not as isolated societies but as a
global community, and recognizing the diversity of
social values that are placed on protected areas.
Phillips 120031 suggests that such concerns have
been reflected in a 'new paradigm' of protected
areas (see Table 1.21. But in view of the long
history of resource protection over thousands of
years, it is perhaps not so much a new paradigm as
one rediscovered.
Definitions of protected areas
More generalized, internationally accepted,
definitions of protected areas were first provided in
some of the early international conventions
relating to protected areas, notably the London
Convention in 1933 and the Western Hemisphere
Convention in 1940 (see Table 1.^1. The first lUCN
protected areas definition focused on national
parks, adopted at the 10th General Assembly of
iUCN in New Delhi in 1969 and subsequently
endorsed by the Second World Conference on
National Parks in 1972. The definition placed
emphasis on prevention or elimination of resource
exploitation or occupation by people, and did not
include privately owned land.
In more recent decades, an understanding of
the importance and role of protected areas has
broadened considerably It is now acknowledged
that there are many places where humans have a
vital role in the landscape and are part of ecosystem
processes, and that these places and systems are
also in need of protection. This, in turn, has led to
the understanding that nature protection needs to
be part of a complex system of management all-
owing for different levels of human interaction. This
realization led to the adoption of the present IUCN
definition of a protected area at the IVth World Parks
Congress in 1992, with its emphasis on protection of
both natural and cultural assets.-
"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to
Biodiversity of the seas
more than matches that
on land. Yet less than
one per cent of marine
environments are
protected. Mamanuca
Islands, Fiji.
The world's protected areas
TABLE 1.1: (continued)
1968 UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme began, establishing biosphere reserves 1529 reserves in 105 countries
covering more than 5 million km^as of 20071.
1 971 Ramsar Convention adopted; 1 708 sites covering more than 1 .5 million km^ and 157 contracting parties at the end of 2007.
1972 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Stockholm, Svyeden endorsed nev^ conventions affecting protected
areas and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme lUNEPI based in Nairobi.
World Heritage Convention adopted. By 2006. 166 natural World Heritage sites and 25 mixed natural and cultural sites
had been recognized, covering more than 1.8 million km^
Second World Conference on National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Teton, USA. promoted development assistance for
protected areas in the tropics.
1977 Training program for protected area personnel established at CATIE. Turnalba, Costa Rica; continues until the present
time and has provided trained staff for much of Central America,
1978 lUCN system of categories of protected areas published; set framework for worldwide assessment of protected
area coverage. Latest revision in 199i. now being promoted for other management applications,
1980 World Conservation Strategy, published by lUCN, WWF, and UNEP, popularized the concept of sustainable development
and a partnership between conservation and development.
1981 Protected Areas Data Unit established by lUCN and its Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, at the
lUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK; this provided first worldwide database on protected areas.
1982 Third World National Parks Congress , Bali. Indonesia emphasized the importance of protected areas as a key element
in national development plans; set 10 percent protected area coverage of each of the world's biomes as a target.
1987 Our Common Future (the Brundtland Reportl, the report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development calls for
12 percent of the land to be given protected area status and advocated global action to conserve biodiversity.
1991 Global Environment Facility (GEFI created by World Bank. UNDP, and UNEP. providing a major new intergovernmental
funding mechanism for protected areas, especially through the CBD then under negotiation,
1992 IVlh World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. Emphasized linkages between
protected areas and other sectors of society
1992 The Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, produced Agenda 21 and approved the CBD and Framework Convention on
Climate Change, both highly relevant to protected areas.
2000 UN General Assembly approves Millennium Development Goals, with Goal 7 calling for environmental sustainability
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, called for loss of biodiversity to be reversed by
2010, and for a comprehensive system of marine protected areas to be established by 2012.
2003 Vth World Parks Congress held in Durban, South Africa. Focused on "benefits beyond boundaries." re-emphasizing the
importance of protected areas for sustainable development.
2004 Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD adopts a comprehensive Programme of Work for
Protected Areas to support implementation of the in-situ conservation components of the CBD.
Source Adapted from McNeeiy. 2003.
History, Definitions. Values and Global Perspective
the protection and maintenance of biological
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed througfi legal or other
effective means. "
This definition, which is used throughout this
publication, is now widely accepted at international,
regional, and national levels, and provides the basis
for the worl< of lUCN, the WCPA, and the inclusion
of sites on the periodic UN List of Protected Areas-
It is particularly significant as the starting point for
the definitions and objectives included within the
lUCN Protected Area Management Category system
(Box 1.1), discussed in Chapter A.
Although widely accepted, other definitions for
protected areas have been developed, including
those in legal frameworks for regional and global
agreements, a number of which are listed in Box
1.2. Among them is the protected area definition of
the CBD: A geographically defined area which is
designated or regulated and managed to achieve
specific conservation objectives.' The CBD has been
adopted by 188 countries and this definition clearly
carries considerable weight. It is, however, less
precise than the lUCN definition and does not refer
to cultural aspects of protected areas.
THE GLOBAL BALANCE SHEET: HOW MANY
PROTECTED AREAS?
The value in measuring the numbers and extent of
protected areas on a global basis was first formally
recognized in 1959 by the 27th Session of the UN
Economic and Social Council lECOSOCI, in a
decision that called for compilation of a World List
of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves (UN
ECOSOC, 19591. It recommended the list be pro-
duced on a periodic basis through the collaboration
of national and UN agencies and lUCN, The res-
olution was subsequently endorsed by the UN
General Assembly in 1962 (UN General Assembly
19621, starting a process that produced 13 editions
of the UN List of Protected Areas between 1962 and
2003 - probably the first and longest-running global
environmental reporting mechanism. This early UN
recognition, supported by lUCN, has also provided
an important impetus for the establishment of new
protected areas over the past ^0 years.
The global reporting in the UN List has, from
the outset, been undertaken by lUCN and the
WCPA (and its precursors], and since 1981 the
actual data collection and collation have been the
responsibility of the UNEP-WCMC in partnership
with lUCN and the WCPA. The information is
managed in the World Database on Protected
Areas (WDPA), maintained by UNEP-WCMC on
behalf of the international community In 2002, a
WDPA Consortium of international non-govern-
mental stakeholders involved with global pro-
tected area issues was formed to strengthen the
quality and reliability of the data holdings.
(Membership includes: lUCN, UNEP-WCMC,
Conservation International, The Nature Conserv-
ancy, American Museum of Natural History, Fauna
& Flora International, BirdLife International, WWF,
and Wildlife Conservation Society.)
Despite the apparently straightforward nature
of basic protected area data (latitude, longitude,
area, name, etc.), obtaining accurate and up-to-date
information remains a challenging task, highly de-
pendent on the cooperation of national govern-
ments and their protected area agencies, private
organizations, and the support of the WCPA
network. Obtaining accurate boundary information
is particularly problematic. Knowing the location
and extent of existing protected areas is essential
for undertaking gap analyses to ensure that
important habitats and species are included in
conservation areas, and to implement effective
protected area system planning. At present the
WDPA holds boundary data on about 40 percent of
the protected areas held in the database, although
this includes most of the largest and most
important protected areas. Central geographic
coordinates are known for the vast majority of sites.
The lUCN protected area
definition Includes both
natural and cultural
values. Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park World
Heritage Area, Australia.
The world's protected areas
TABLE 1.2: OLD AND NEW PARADIGMS OF PROTECTED AREAS
As it was:
As it is becoming:
protected areas were...
protected areas are...
Objectives
Set aside for consen/ation
Run also with social
Established mainly for spectacular
and economic objectives
wildlife and scenic protection
Often set up for scientific.
Managed mainly for visitors
economic, and
and tourists
cultural reasons
Valued as wilderness
Managed with local
About protection
people more in mind
Valued for the cultural
importance of so-called
"wilderness"
Also about restoration and
rehabilitation
Governance
Run by central government
Run by many partners
Local people
Planned and managed against people
Run with, for. and in
Managed without regard for
some cases by local people
local opinions
Managed to meet the needs of
local people
Wider context
Developed separately
Planned as part of national,
Managed as "islands"
regional, and international
systems
Developed as "networks"
Istrictly protected areas,
buffered and linked by green
corridors!
Perceptions
Viewed primarily as a national asset
Viewed also as a community
Viewed only as a national concern
asset
Viewed also as an international
concern
Management techniques
Managed reactively within short
Managed adaptively in long-
timescale
term perspective
Managed in a technocratic way
Managed with political
considerations
Finance
Paid for by taxpayer
Paid for from many sources
Ivlanagement skills
Managed by scientists and
Managed by multiskilled
natural resource experts
individuals
Expert led
Drawing on local knowledge
Source; Phillips. 2003
10
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
FIGURE 1.2: GLOBAL GROWTH IN PROTECTED AREA, 1872-2005
20
I Cumulative area of documented sites Ikm'l
I Cumulative areas of non-dated sites Ikm^l
■ ■■II
ll
1872 '75 85 '95 1905 '15
■25
'35 '45
'55 '65 '75 '85
'95 2005
Improving information held in the WDPA is
an ongoing process and, as the quality of data
is refined, these improvements can lead to
adjustments to the knov^n global numbers and
extent of protected areas. Sometimes these
adjustments can result in a reduction of protected
area numbers in specific localities as errors are
removed, but the overall trends of cumulative
grovjth are clear
Figure 1.2 shows the grovifth in the global
protected areas estate over time, while Table 1.3
provides a listing of some of the worlds largest pro-
tected areas. By the end of 2005, the WDPA had re-
corded over 114 000 sites. These protected areas
covered more than 19 million km^, or 12.9 percent of
the Earth's land surface. It is apparent that nature
conservation has become one of the most important
human endeavors on the planet, and the area under
FIGURE 1.3: GLOBAL GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF PROTECTED AREAS, 1872-2005
80
60
.t: 40
20
I Cumulative number of documented sites COOOI
I Cumulative number of non-dated sites I'OOOI
1872 '75
'85
'95 1905 '15 '25 '35
45
'55 '65
'75
'85 '95 2005
11
The world's protected areas
BOX 1.1: lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
CATEGORY la
Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science
Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological
or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or
environmental monitoring.
CATEGORY lb
Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection
Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and
influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to
preserve its natural condition.
CATEGORY II
National Parl<: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation
Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to la) protect the ecological integrity of one or more
ecosystems for present and future generations, |b| exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the
purposes of designation of the area, and (c| provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational,
recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
CATEGORY III
Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features
Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature that is of outstanding
or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural
significance.
CATEGORY IV
Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through
management intervention
Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the
maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.
CATEGORY V
Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation
and recreation
Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time
has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value,
and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital
to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.
CATEGORY VI
Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural
ecosystems
Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection
and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural
products and services to meet community needs.
12
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
FIGURE ^M■. THE WORLD'S PROTECTED AREAS BY REGION, 2005
Isee Ctiapter 7 for regional definitions!
la lb II III IV
Area
V
VI
No
Category
Total
%of
land area
protected
Antarctic
Area TOOO km^l
No. sites
68.14
87
-
0.16
4
0.01
2
0.47
19
0.01
5
0.00
1
1.53
4
70.32
122
0.50
Australia/New Zealand
Area I'OOO km-1
No. sites
217.04
2 136
41.90
38
347.41
701
33.81
3 946
269.25
1 657
22.50
217
596.25
489
9.70
411
1 537.85
9 595
19.19
Brazil
Area I'OOO km^j
No. sites
112.02
182
-
160.68
179
0-70
5
5.07
259
135.71
115
212.55
70
984.81
476
1 611.55
1 286
18.85
Caribbean
Area I'OOO km-'j
No. sites
0.18
11
0.09
18
26.97
163
0.50
40
11.20
283
3.57
37
22.22
192
3.47
223
68.20
967
29.05
Central America
Area I'OOO knn2)
No. sites
4.13
18
0.34
3
40.03
104
2.22
48
13.25
225
1.25
5
44.62
100
52.11
280
157.93
783
30.28
East Asia
Area I'OOO km^l
No. sites
62.84
43
43.40
34
98.82
79
19.51
34
6.11
121
1 444.75
2144
59.34
78
29.87
734
1 764.64
3 267
15.00
Eastern and Southern Africa
Area I'OOO km^j
No. sites
2.79
17
1.25
7
508.60
220
0.15
24
265.11
497
12.56
30
543.87
219
354.55
3 053
1 688.88
4 067
14.70
Europe
Area I'OOO km2)
No. sites
85.84
1577
39 95
542
108.57
275
4.46
3 570
70.59
16331
348.59
3 035
22.01
203
194.48
27 527
874.47
53 060
16.72
North Africa and Middle East
Area I'OOO km^j
No. sites
3.50
28
0.03
2
215.87
71
12.43
50
69.81
269
114.76
162
790.66
30
78.69
712
1 285.75
1 324
10.02
North America
Area I'OOO km^l
No. sites
68.86
841
473.01
702
1 658.85
1349
72.59
591
614.73
1334
135.06
2 083
1 015.14
1425
70.56
5 229
4 108.82
13 554
17.31
North Eurasia
Area I'OOO km^j
No. sites
362.22
195
-
125.42
66
24.44
11321
841.56
5 256
14.79
407
84.22
54
302.46
398
1 755.10
17 697
7.94
Pacific
Area I'OOO km2|
No. sites
1.15
29
8.13
38
0.52
23
1.10
86
10.52
16
11.70
59
33.02
160
66.13
411
11.95
South America (excL Brazil)
Area I'OOO km^J
No. sites
12.48
55
14.75
4
505.12
220
74.35
72
185.55
143
126.20
96
586.30
314
593.69
546
2 098.44
1 450
22.55
South Asia
Area I'OOO km^l
No. sites
2.49
19
0-83
2
67.34
133
-
160.88
661
1.39
11
26.13
12
51.23
379
310.28
1 217
6.91
South East Asia
Area I'OOO km^l
No. sites
22.53
292
11.40
12
254.66
329
24.85
83
142.53
206
20.84
129
200.83
985
184.09
859
861.71
2 895
18.60
Western and Central Africa
Area I'OOO km^l
No. sites
21.74
19
11.74
7
348.46
91
0.40
4
347.80
119
0.19
3
67.81
45
322.80
2313
1 120.94
2 601
8.75
TOTAL
Area COOO km2|
No. sites
1048
5 549
639
1371
4 475
4 022
271
19 813
3 005
27 466
2 393
8 495
4 284
4 276
3 267
43 304
19 381
114 296
12.90
1
13
The world's protected areas
FIGURE 1 .5: GLOBAL PROTECTED AREAS BY
lUCN CATEGORY, 2005
No
category
FIGURE 1.6: GLOBAL PROTECTED AREAS.
LEVEL OF PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND
USE, 2005
protection now exceeds the total area of permanent
crops and arable land. What is also clear is the
great disparity between terrestrial and marine
conservation efforts, with only 0.5 percent of the
worlds marine area in protected areas. The global
distribution of protected areas on the basis of the
world's major habitats is discussed in Chapter 2,
and detailed protected area statistics by region are
presented in the regional overviews in Part 2.
Statistics about protected areas can tell us
more than "how many and how much" at global,
regional, and national levels. If protected area man-
agement categories (Box 1.1) are properly assigned
on the basis of protected area management
objectives, then statistical information about pro-
tected areas can reveal a great deal about how con-
servation objectives are being applied. If the
categories are consistently and accurately applied
by all countries we will have a clear understanding
of why individual protected areas have been
established and the type of conservation role that
they fulfill. The history of the categories and their
application are discussed in Chapter 4.
Currently about two thirds of the protected
areas in the WDPA are assigned categories,
covering just over 80 percent of the total area
protected. Analyses of the data reveal some
interesting global and regional trends (Figures 1 .4,
1.5 and 1.6). There are relatively few strictly
protected areas (la and Ibl, and they cover a small
percentage of the Earths surface. However, in the
case of Category II (into which most of the "trad-
itional" national parks falll, there is a stark differ-
ence between the relatively low numbers of these
sites and the large global area that they cover -
reflecting the fact that national parks tend to
encompass large geographic areas. The reverse is
true for Category III and to a lesser extent Category
IV, which are characterized by numerous smaller
sites. Of particular interest is the growth in
Category VI, with its emphasis on sustainable use
of natural resources, which was adopted by lUCN
in 1994. This category is also characterized by a
small number of larger sites, eight of which are
among the current 20 largest protected areas in
the world (Table 1.31. Figure 1.6 summarizes the
three main groups of categories by their primary
emphasis: strict protection, intensive manage-
ment, and sustainable use.
VALUES AND BENEFITS OF PROTECTED AREAS
In addition to their specific contribution to global
biodiversity conservation, protected areas have a
number of wide-ranging values and benefits. As
early as 1959, the UN ECOSOC noted that national
parks and equivalent reserves were an important
factor in the wise use of natural resources, and they
"contribute to the inspiration, culture and welfare of
U
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
mankind". lUCN I199il defines the mam purposes
of protected areas as:
□ scientific research;
O wilderness protection;
O preservation of species and genetic diversity;
G maintenance of environmental services;
□ protection of specific natural and cultural
features,
□ tourism and recreation;
□ education;
□ sustainable use of resources from natural
ecosystems;
□ maintenance of cultural and traditional
attributes.
Attempts to place a value on protected areas and
the ecosystems they encompass invariably expand
to consider many functions and activities essen-
tial for human existence, broadly defined as eco-
system goods and services. They provide us with
food, water, and other resources, regulate our
weather patterns, and provide us with precious
medicines and crop varieties. Tourism, now one
of the world's largest industries, is dependent in
many areas on the attractions of protected areas,
and sites generate income, foreign exchange
earnings, and employment at local, regional, and
national levels.
The quantitative values of protected areas
are increasingly being used as a tool to justify
and support the development of protected area
networks. Information on values to different user
groups, and on the driving forces behind these
values, is also important in enabling better man-
agement and in avoiding threats or conflicts. The
most powerful arguments for establishment and
retention of protected areas in many circles are
economic. However, it is quite widely accepted that,
at present, "ecosystem services are not fully 'cap-
tured' in commercial markets or adequately quant-
ified in terms comparable with economic services
and manufactured capital, they are often given too
little weight in policy decisions" ICostanza e( a/.,
1 9971. The concept of total economic value ITEV) has
been widely used to attempt to convert all values
and benefits into simple economic terms. Figure 1 .7
shows the main categories of values and benefits
that contribute to TEV. However, many values are
notoriously difficult to evaluate in economic terms,
and results remain somewhat subjective. ISee, for
example, Munasinghe and McNeely 1994; lUCN,
1998; Putney, 2000.1 Although typically expressed in
economic terms, it is important to consider other
approaches to valuation. Differences in available
wealth to particular communities and differences in
overall wealth between countries, mean that the
use of simple "dollar values" can be misleading.
Protected areas may be the only source of employ-
FIGURE 1,7: THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE (TEV)
Total economic value
Use values (material values)
1
1
Direct use
values: e,g,
grazing,
harvesting,
tourism,
research
Indirect use
values: e.g.
carbon
sequestration,
water
replenishment
Option values:
Value assigned
for future
direct or
indirect uses
Source: Adapted from lUCN 119981
Non-use values [non-material values)
Existence
values:
aesthetic,
spiritual,
cultural
Bequest
values:
future values
(use and non-
use) as legacy
to future
generations
15
The world's protected areas
ment in some areas, or may provide a critical source
of fuelwood, or of animal protein in local diets.
Converted to dollar values on open markets, such
measurements may appear trivial, but their loss
could be devastating to many people.
Direct use values and benefits
Recreation/tourism: Sometimes simply expressed
as the receipts in terms of park fees, it is important
to include the combined economic impact of
park-related tourism for regional economies,
including travel and accommodation costs, and
other expenditure. Such values can also be viewed
in terms of employment of local populations.
Harvesting: Depending on its management object-
ives it IS often feasible and desirable to allow sus-
tainable extraction of selected natural resources
from protected areas. This, for example, is the case
with lUCN Category V and VI protected areas.
Activities may include grazing of livestock, fishing,
hunting, the use of non-timber forest products,
agriculture, water extraction, and extraction of
genetic resources. An example of such renewable
resource use is in the Danayiku Nature Park
at Shan-Mei in Taiwan. Years of community
cooperation and investment have changed a once
depleted and unsustainably harvested stock of
freshwater game fish, kooye minnow {Varicorhinus
barbatulus], into a financially lucrative sport fishing
and ecotourism venture ITai, 20021.
Extraction of non-renewable resources: Certain
BOX 1.2: EXAMPLES OF CURRENT PROTECTED AREA DEFINITIONS
GLOBAL
O lUCN
"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other
effective means."
G Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDl
"A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific
conservation objectives."
d Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
"For the purpose of this Convention wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether
natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or
salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres."
G UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme
Biosphere resen/es: "Areas of terrestrial and coastal-marine systems which are internationally
recognized for promoting and demonstrating a balanced relationship between people and nature."
REGIONAL
O Europe
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: "Protected or protective forest"
definition allows for non-permanent designation, although requires protection for at least 20 years.
Natura 2000 Common Database on Designated Areas: "Designated area" is based on lUCN definition
but can be extended to cover, for example, complete distribution of certain habitats.
Helsinki Convention on Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area: Natural
coastal areas where land and sea meet are in a constant dynamic relation to each other and are:
systems of great biological richness, variety and productivity; form the habitats of highly specialized
and often endangered species of wild fauna and flora as well as large populations of breeding and
16
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
extractive activities are non-sustainable, notably of
petroleum products and minerals. In general, this
appears to be contrary to the concept of "protection
and maintenance" associated vi(ith the definition of
protected areas. There may be a few cases v^fhere
the extraction process has limited Impacts and the
material being extracted may not be essential to the
objectives and functioning of the protected area. In
such cases it may be argued that economic benefits
(direct payments! for the extraction process may
justify this activity. However, considerable debate on
the Issue of mineral and hydrocarbon extraction In
protected areas continues (see Chapter 31.
Scientific research: Protected areas offer some of
the best opportunities to understand and explain
One of the many values
of protected areas is the
provision of recreational
experience, especially
in an Increasingly urban
world. Linnansaari
National Park, Finland.
migratory birds; landscapes of great natural beauty; highly important for public recreation; a natural
resource which is becoming more and more scarce."
Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats: Areas of special
conservation Interest should: "a. [contribute] substantially to the survival of threatened species,
endemic species, or any species listed in Appendices I and II of the convention; b. (support] significant
numbers of species in an area of high species diversity or [support] important populations of one
or more species; c. [contain] an important and/or representative sample of endangered habitat types;
d. [contain] an outstanding example of a particular habitat type or a mosaic of different habitat types;
e. [represent] an Important area for one or more migratory species; f. otherwise [contribute]
substantially to the achievement of the objectives of the convention."
Southeast Asia
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: National Parl<s: "natural
areas that are sufficiently large to allow for ecological self-regulation of one or several ecosystems,
and which have not been substantially altered by human occupation or exploitation." Reserves: "for
the purpose of preserving a specific ecosystem, the critical habitat of certain species of fauna or flora,
a water catchment area or for any other specific purpose relating to the conservation of natural
resources or objects or areas of scientific, aesthetic, cultural, educational or recreational interest."
South Pacific
Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention): "al Protected area'
means national park or national reserve; bl 'National park' means an area established tor the
protection and conservation of ecosystems containing animal and plant species, geomorphological
sites and habitats of special scientific, educative and recreational interest or a natural landscape of
great beauty, which is under the control of the appropriate public authority and open to visits by the
public; cl 'National reserve' means an area recognized and controlled by the appropriate public
authority and established for protection and conservation of nature, and includes strict nature reserve,
managed nature reserve, wilderness reserve, fauna or flora reserve, game reserve, bird sanctuary,
geological or forest reserve, archaeological reserve and historical reserve, these being reserves
affording various degrees of protection to the natural and cultural heritage according to the purposes
for which they are established."
17
The world's protected areas
Canopy walk,
Bukit Lagong Forest
Reserve, Malaysia.
natural ecosystem processes. They also offer a
natural baseline against wfiicfi to measure changes
in natural environmental systems - an issue of
growing importance in this period of unprecedented
global environmental change.
Indirect use benefits and option values
Climate influences: Many protected areas play a
role in maintaining microclimatic or climatic
stability, including rainfall patterns. Protected areas
are also w/idely cited as playing a critical role in
mitigating the impacts of climate change, acting as
carbon reservoirs or sinl<s.
Water services and erosion control: In addition to
climatic influences, protected areas play an
important role in water catchment protection,
guaranteeing the supply of water to adjacent
populations and stabilizing steep slopes. The
presence of natural vegetation, notably forests and
wetlands, reduces extremes of water flow and plays
a role in flood control. These services can help
ensure water provision to the local vicinity Without
them, flooding in rainy seasons becomes more
likely, as does drought in dry seasons. Canaima
National Parl< and World Heritage site in Venezuela
protects the Caroni River catchment. This, in turn,
provides over 70 percent of the country's electricity
needs through hydroelectricity production.
Coastal processes: Protected habitats such as
salt marshes, mangroves, dune systems, and coral
reefs are widely cited for their role in coastal
protection. The retention of mangrove systems
played a significant role in buffering the impact of
the tsunami that devastated many parts of South
and Southeast Asia in 2004.
Wider ecological influences: Protected areas can
have positive benefits for adjoining land and
seascapes. This is particularly the case in marine
communities. The declining state of the oceans and
the collapse of many fisheries create a critical need
for more effective management of marine
biodiversity, populations of exploited species, and
the overall health of the oceans. There is now
widespread international scientific consensus that
the establishment of highly protected Marine
Protected Areas (MPAsl can be essential in
sustainable fisheries management through
protection of sensitive habitats and species, the
provision of reference sites, and assistance with
stock management (Murray ef a/., 1999; Halpern,
2003; Gell and Roberts, 20031. For example, a
network of five small reserves within the Soufriere
Marine Management Area in St Lucia increased
adjacent artisanal fisheries by 49-90 percent over a
wider area, depending on the fishing gear utilized
(Roberts eta/., 2001).
In Tanzania, poaching and uncontrolled
hunting of elephants to the southeast of Tarangire
National Park led to an increase in woody plants
within the park. This is believed to have caused an
increase in tsetse flies and livestock losses for local
people. Conservation of elephants may well have
enhanced the productivity of the livestock industry
(lUCN, 19981.
Genetic resources: Protected areas have a role as
in-situ reservoirs of important genetic material,
such as wild crop progenitors and pharmaceuticals.
Although impossible to calculate in its entirety, the
global protected areas estate is of great importance
for the maintenance of food resources and supply of
medicines. For example, by the early 1990s, 3 000
plants had been identified by the US National
Cancer Institute as being active against cancer
18
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
TABLE 1.3:
Country
THE WORLD'S 20 URGEST PROTECTED AREAS IN 2005
Protected National Size
area designation (km^l
IUCN management
category
Greenland
Northeast Greenland
National park
972 000
II
Saudi Arabia
Ar-Rubal-Khali
Wildlife management area
6A0 000
VI
Australia
Great Barrier Reef
Marine park
3Ai 360
VI
USA
Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands
Coral reef
ecosystem reserve*
3il 362
VI
China
Qiangtang
Nature reserve
298 000
V
Australia
Macquane Island
Marine park
162 060
IV
China
Sanjianqyuan
Nature reserve
152 300
V
Ecuador
Galapagos
Marine reserve
133 000
VI
Saudi Arabia
Northern Wildlife
Management Zone
Wildlife
management area
100 875
VI
Australia
Nqaanyatiarra Lands
Indigenous protected area
98 129
VI
Venezuela
Alto Onnoco-Casiquiare
Biosphere reserve
8i000
VI
Brazil
Vale do Javari
Indiqenous area
83 380
No category
Chad
Ouadi Rime-Ouadi Achim
Faunal reserve
80 000
IV
Brazil
Yanomami
lAM-ROI
Indigenous park
77 519
No category
USA
Yukon Delta
National wildlife refuge
77A25
IV
USA
Arctic
National wildlife refuge
72 8A3
IV
Venezuela
Sur del Estado Bolivar
Protective zone
72 62/i
V
Algeria
Tassili N'A||er
National park
72 000
II
Angola
Coutada
Integral nature reserve
68164
Nocategon/
USA
Tongass
National forest
67 404
VI
Note: These areas represent 0,02 percent of the total number of the world's protected areas, but
L million km2or21 percent of the total area protected.
' Site designation changed to National Monument iUCN Category III in 2006,
comprise more than
cells; 70 percent of these plants came from
rainforests, which are best conserved in protected
areas IBird, 19911.
Refugia: With growing concerns about climate
change, together with more immediate and widely
reported impacts such as pollution incidents,
the potential importance of protected areas as
refugia for future restoration and recovery of
adjacent areas is being increasingly understood
and realized.
INTANGIBLE VALUES OF PROTECTED AREAS
The WCPA has defined "intangible values"
(Harmon antJ Putney, 20031 as those which enrich
"the intellectual, psychological, emotional,
spiritual, cultural and/or creative aspects of
human existence and well being" IWCPA 2000).
Such values have been fundamental to the
recognition and protection of special places by
many cultures for millennia. Intangible values of
protected areas include:
Recreational values: the intrinsic qualities of
natural areas that interact with humans
to restore, refresh, or create anew through
stimulation and exercise of the mind and body.
Spiritual i/a/ues: those qualities of protected areas
that inspire humans to relate with reverence to the
sacredness of nature.
Cultural i/a/t'es: qualities, both positive and nega-
tive, ascribed to sites by different social groups,
traditions, beliefs, or value systems that fulfill
humankind's need to understand and connect in
19
The world's protected areas
TABLE 1.4: INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS,
AND ASSOCIATED PROTOCOLS WITH PROTECTED AREA PROVISIONS
Title IShort title)
Place of adoption
Adopted
Notes
European Landscape Convention
(Council of Europe)
Florence
2000
1
Southern Africa Wildlife Protocol
Maputo
1999
2
Statutory Framework of tfie World Networl<
of Biosptiere Reserves
Seville
1995
2
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas
and Biological Diversity in ttie Mediterranean
(SPA and Biodiversity Protocol]
Barcelona
1995
2
Agreement on tfie Consen/ation of African-Eurasian
Migratory Waterbirds
The Hague
1995
1
Agreement on tfie Preparation of a Tripartite
Environmental Management Programme for
Lal<e Victoria
Dar-es-Salaam
199^
Convention for the Conservation of the Biodiversity
and the Protection of Wilderness Areas
in Central America
Managua
1992
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDi
Nairobi
1992
1
Council Directive on the Consen/ation of natural
habitats of wild fauna and flora (EU) (Habitats Directivel Brussels
1992
2
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention)
Bucharest
1992
4
Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Northeast Atlantic - Oslo
and Paris Conventions (OSPAR Convention)
Paris
1992
U
Convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area
(Helsinki Convention)
Helsinki
1992
t.
Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on
Environmental Protection
Madrid
1991
3
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas
and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection
and Development of the Marine Environment
of the Wider Caribbean Region (SPAW Protocol)
Kingston
Convention for the Protection. Management and
Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment
of the Eastern African Region (Nairobi Convention) Nairobi
Protocol Concerning Protected Areas
and Wild Fauna and Flora in the Eastern
African Region Nairobi
1990
Protocol for the Conservation and Management of
Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the
Southeast Pacific
Paipa (Colombia)
1989
2
Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources
and Environment of the South Pacific Region
Noumea
(Noumea or SPREP Convention)
(New Caledonia)
1986
4
1985
1985
20
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
The Mekong River
and its ecosystems
Link China and a
number of Southeast
Asian countries.
meaningful ways to the environment of its origin
and tfie rest of nature.
Identity values: natural sites that link people to their
landscape through myth, legend, or history.
Existence values: the satisfaction, symbolic import-
ance, and even willingness to pay, derived from
knowing that both outstanding natural and cultural
landscapes have been protected, and exist as
physical and conceptual spaces where all forms of
life and culture are valued and held sacred.
Artistic values: the qualities of nature that inspire
human imagination in creative expression.
Aesthetic values: an appreciation of the harmony,
beauty, and profound meaning found in nature.
Educational values: the qualities of nature that
enlighten the careful observer with respect to the
relationships of humans with the natural environ-
ment and, by extension, relationships of humans with
one another, thereby creating respect and
understanding.
Peace values: encompass the function of protected
areas in fostering regional peace and stability
through cooperative management across inter-
national land or sea boundaries (transfrontier or
transboundary protected areas); as "intercultural
spaces" tor the development of understanding
between traditional and modern societies, or
between distinct cultures; and peace between
society and nature. Transboundary protected areas
have played a role in the peaceful settlement of
disputes among a number of countries in the last
ten years. Recognizing the importance of trans-
boundary protected areas for peace and coop-
eration, the WCPA has developed guidance based
on the experiences of managers around the world.
Therapeutic values: the relationship between
people and natural environments in protected areas
that creates the potential for healing, and en-
hancing physical and psychological well-being.
INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF PROTECTED
AREAS
Terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems and
species are rarely confined within human political
boundaries. Often, the success of conservation and
sustainable resource management of these
ecosystems and species depends on collaboration
between countries, especially in the joint manage-
ment of major ecosystem divides such as rivers,
watersheds, and mountain ranges, for example the
Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River system, the
Andes, and the Himalayan Mountain range.
Conservation of migratory species also requires
international collaboration. At the same time,
lessons learned by one country in managing
particular species or ecological systems often have
a value elsewhere and need to be shared.
In fact, such international collaboration has
formed the basis of numerous environmental
agreements going back many decades, including
agreements that specifically address the need for
protected areas (Table T^l. The role of protected
areas within a wider framework of global biodiversity
21
The world's protected areas
TABLE 1.4: (continued)
Title (Stiort title) Place of adoption
Adopted
Notes
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources
Kuala Lumpur
1985
1
ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parl<s and Reserves
Bangl<ok
1984
5
Convention for ttie Protection and
Development of the Marine Environment of
the Wider Caribbean Region
ICartagena Convention] Cartagena de Indias IColombial
1983
Protocol concerning Mediterranean
Specially Protected Areas ISPA Protocol]
Geneva
1982
2
Benelux Convention on Nature Conservation
and Landscape Protection
Brussels
1982
United Nations Convention on the Law
oftheSealUNCLOS]
Montego Bay
1982
1
Regional Convention for the Conservation of
the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment
IJeddah Convention]
Jeddah
1982
L
Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and
Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment
of the West and Central African Region
(Abidjan Convention]
Abidjan
1981
i.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and Coastal Area of the Southeast
Pacific (Lima Convention]
Lima
1981
k
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources ICCAMLR]
Canberra
1980
1
European Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation betvtfeen Territorial Communities
or Authorities
Madrid
1980
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention]
Bern
1979
1
Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds
lEU] (Wild Birds Directive]
1979
2
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention!
Bonn
1979
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto IMARPOL 73/78)
1978
3
conservation is innplicit or explicit in all of these.
More recently still, the role of protected areas within
the frannework of human well-being and
development has been given clear prominence in the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), agreed by all 191 Member States. Under
MDG Goal 7, Member States are committed to
ensuring environmental sustainability by 2015, and
must "integrate the principles of sustainable
development into country policies and programs and
reverse the loss of environmental resources (Target
9)." One key measure for success (Indicator 26) is the
"land area protected to maintain biological diversity."
International conservation agreements at
global, regional, and bilateral levels, and almost 50
international environmental conventions, treaties.
22
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
TABLE 1.4: (continued)
Title (Short title) Place of adoption
Adopted
Notes
Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on
the Protection of ttie Marine Environment from
Pollution (Kuwait Convention]
Kuwait
1978
4
Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean
Sea Against Pollution IBarcelona Convention)
Barcelona
1976
Convention on Conservation of Nature in the
South Pacific lApia Convention)
Apia
1976
1
European Network of Biogenetic Reserves:
Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers
Council of Europe*
1976
2
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
London
1972
1
Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage
[World Heritage Convention]
Paris
1972
2
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
especially as Waterfowl Habitat IRamsar Convention]
Ramsar
1971
2
Man and the Biosphere Programme' (MAB)
1970
2
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources'
Algiers
1968
1
European Diploma: Resolutions of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe*
1965
2
Agreed Measures for the Conservation of
Antarctic Fauna and Flora
Brussels
196/1
3
The Antarctic Treaty
Washington
1959
3
International Convention for the Protection of Birds
Paris
1950
1
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
Washington
19i6
3
Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life
Preservation in the Western Hemisphere
(Western Hemisphere Convention]
Washington
19i0
1
Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna
and Flora m their Natural State (London Convention)
London
1933
1
Notes:
1 : Text encourages states either directly or in equivalent language to establish protected areas,
2: Text establishes a defined fornn of protected area (specific to that convention or agreement]
3: Encourages protection of areas, but such areas not recognized by lUCN,
i: General text simply exhorts environmental protection, often linked to protocols or other measures that require designation
of protected areas.
5: Text specifies a list of sites.
' Regarded as a "non-treaty agreement", or "soft law", not legally binding under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
t Revision adopted fvlaputo 2003 - not yet in force
agreements, and associated protocols now exist,
which encourage the protection of land or sea for
nature conservation (see Table 1.4]. A number of
these include specific protected area definitions and
provide a legal framework for the designation of
sites. Here we consider four of the most important
agreements in more detail, before considering the
interactions between such agreements and then
looking more closely at finer-scale agreements
associated with transboundary protected areas,
networks, and corridors.
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was
signed by 150 government leaders at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
23
The world's protected areas
Ecological linkages:
improved conservation
of elephants in
Tanzanian protected
areas has led to a
reduction in tree cover
to historic Levels,
decreasing populations
of tsetse flies and
thereby benefitting
domestic livestock in
adjacent areas.
ment lUNCEDl in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June
1992, and entered into force on 29 December 1993.
The CBD was an attempt not just to raise the
profile of environmental concerns at the global
level but also to embrace a range of disparate
perspectives on vi/hat aspects of the natural v\/orld
w/ere important and why. To this end it uses a very
broad definition of biological diversity, namely:
"the variability among living organisms from all
sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine
and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they are part; this includes
diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems." It emphasizes not just the intrinsic
value of biological diversity, but also the goods and
services that biological diversity supplies,
stressing the need for these to be maintained for
future generations. Reflecting this, it has
established three parallel objectives, namely the
conservation of biological diversity, the sust-
ainable use of its components, and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the
utilization of genetic resources.
As of 2006, the CBD had 188 Parties, including
all but a handful of the world's countries (the
exceptions are Andorra, Brunei Darussalam, Holy
See, Iraq, Somalia and the USA|. Eight ordinary
meetings of the Conference of Parties and 1 1 meet-
ings of the Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice had been held.
The CBD is the broadest-ranging environ-
mental agreement and second only to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
in terms of membership. Consequently, the
Convention has established a significant political
momentum. While the CBD establishes no specific
network of sites. It is one of the most Important
developments for protected areas in the last
decade. The Convention implicitly acknowledges
the Importance of protected areas, and explicitly
recognizes their fundamental role in the
conservation of biological diversity, devoting a
major part of Article 8, on in-situ conservation, to
them. Under this Article, Parties to the Convention
are called on to, among other things: establish a
system of protected areas or areas where special
measures need to be taken to conserve biological
diversity; develop, where necessary, guidelines for
the selection, establishment, and management of
protected areas or areas where special measures
need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;
and promote the protection of ecosystems, natural
habitats, and the maintenance of viable populations
of species in natural surroundings.
In April 2002, the Sixth fi^eetlng of the Confer-
ence of Parties IC0P6I to the CBD adopted a stra-
tegic plan for the Convention. Within the strategic
plan. Parties commit themselves to "achieve by
2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of
biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national
levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to
the benefit of all life on Earth." This target was
endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in September 2002.
At the Seventh fs/leeting of the Conference of
Parties ICoP7l to the CBD In February 200^, pro-
tected areas were one of the main themes for
discussion. The Parties at the meeting adopted a
Programme of Work on Protected Areas to
Implement the relevant articles of the Convention,
Including endorsement of the lUCN protected areas
management category system and encouragement
of countries to adopt these categories. They also
endorsed protected area coverage as an indicator
for "immediate testing" in relation to the globally
adopted target of significantly reducing the loss of
biodiversity by the year 201 0.
International site-based conventions and
programs
At the global level the principal site-based
conservation area conventions and programs are:
24
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
Jungfrau-Aletsch-
Bietschhorn World
Heritage Area in
Switzerland, designated
in 2001.
The World Heritage Convention
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World
Heritage Convention) was adopted by the General
Conference of UNESCO in 1972 and entered into
force on 17 Decennber 1975. By October 2006, 18i
States vi/ere party to it, making it the most globally
adopted international instrument for protecting the
world's cultural and natural heritage. A study
ll^agin and Chape, 20041 noted that, whUe the total
number of natural and mixed World Heritage sites -
172 at the time of the study - comprised only 0.17
percent of the total number of the w^orld's protected
areas, their combined area of 1.7 million km^ Vi(as
just over 9 percent of the total area protected.
The Convention is governed by the World
Heritage Committee, w/hich revievi^s and admin-
isters operational guidelines and assesses nomin-
ations for World Heritage Listing presented by
States Parties at its annual meetings. The Com-
mittee is assisted in its evaluation of nominations by
Advisory Bodies:
Q for Natural World Heritage: lUCN - The World
Conservation Union;
□ for Cultural World Heritage: the International
Council on Monuments and Sites IICOMOSI
and the International Centre for the Study of
the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM).
For a site to be included on the World Heritage List,
the World Heritage Committee must find that it has
"outstanding universal value." The recently revised
Convention Operational Guidelines define out-
standing universal value as:
...cultural and/or natural significance which is so
exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and
to be of common importance for present and future
generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance
to the international community as a whole.
At the time of inscription of a property on the
World Heritage List, the Committee will agree on a
statement of outstanding universal value.
Sites can also be nominated and listed as mixed
sites: those that have outstanding natural and
cultural values. Since 1992, significant interactions
betvi/een people and the natural environment have
also been recognized as cultural landscapes. In
2007, the World Heritage List consisted of a total of
851 properties in U1 States Parties. Of these, 660
were inscribed as cultural properties, 166 as
natural sites, and 25 as mixed properties.
It is on the basis of the overriding principle of
outstanding universal value that the Committee
has defined ten criteria for inclusion of cultural
and natural properties on the World Heritage List.
The Convention Operational Guidelines define
25
The world's protected areas
the following criteria for sites nominated for
natural values:
Ivii) Contain superlative natural phenomena or
areas of exceptional natural beauty and
aesthetic importance,
(viiil Be outstanding examples representing major
stages of the Earth's history, including the
record of life, significant ongoing geological
processes in the development of landforms, or
significant geomorphic or physiographic
features.
(ix| Be outstanding examples representing sign-
ificant ongoing ecological and biological
processes in the evolution and development of
terrestrial, freshv\/ater, coastal, and marine
ecosystems and communities of plants and
animals.
Ixl Contain the most important and significant
natural habitats for in-situ conservation of
biological diversity, including those containing
threatened species of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of science or
conservation.
As well as fulfilling one or more of these criteria,
the protection, management, and integrity of a site
are also important considerations that are tal<en
into account by the Committee when assessing
nominations for listing. The World Heritage List
represents the pinnacle of the worlds natural and
cultural heritage, hence the need for rigorous
application of stringent criteria. The fundamental
difference between Natural and Mixed World
Heritage sites and other types of protected areas is
the use of the frameworl< of outstanding universal
value and site integrity as a determinant for
inscription. Figure 1.8 illustrates one conceptual
view of the relationship of World Heritage sites to
other types of national and international protected
areas in terms of relative scale (global numbers]
and the application of outstanding universal value
as the key determinant for moving protected areas
on to the World Heritage List. Below the outstanding
universal value line, all protected areas are vital for
ecosystem, landscape, and species conservation
based on the principle of effective representivity. Of
course. World Heritage sites also have a vital role in
conserving landscapes and biodiversity.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
The Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance, adopted In Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, Is an
intergovernmental treaty that provides the frame-
work for national action and international cooper-
FIGURE 1.8: THE RELATIONSHIP OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES TO OTHER TYPES OF PROTECTED AREAS
Determinant:
Outstanding
Universal Value
Sites nominated
individually or
serially can
cress the
threshold if
they meet one
or more WH
criteria and
stringent
requirements
of integrity.
OUTSTANDING
Source: Magm
& Chape 200i
World \ UNIVERSAL VALUE
other International
(e.g. Ramsar Sites, \
Biosphere reserves, Geoparksl
Regional sites and netv/orks
(e.g. Nature 2000, ASEAN Heritage Parks!
Sub-regional sites
(e.g. transboundary PAs, peace parks)
Emphasis:
Representivity
Ecosystem,
landscape,
habitat, and
species
conservation
through
effective PA
systems and
ecological
networks.
National sites/PA systems
(e.g. national parks, nature reserves, private reserves, monuments,
NGO designations such as IBSs, ecological networks)
Sub-national sites
(e.g. regional parks, provincial and district reserves)
26
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
ation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands
and tfieir resources. Parties to ttie Convention fiave
adopted a vision "to develop and nnaintaln an
international network of wetlands that are
important for the conservation of global biological
diversity and for sustaining human life through the
ecological and hydrological functions they
perform." In 2007, there were 157 Contracting
Parties to the Convention, with 1 708 wetland sites
covering 1.53 million km^ included on the Ramsar
List of Wetlands of international Importance. The
target is to have 2.5 million km^ by 2010.
The Convention requires that each member
state designate suitable wetlands within its territory
for inclusion in the List, which is maintained by the
Convention Secretariat. The listed wetland sites
range from one hectare of some of the world's
largest and oldest mangroves, found on Australia's
Christmas Island, to the 68 640 km^ of the Okavango
Delta Ramsar Site in Botswana.
The Ramsar definition of "wetland" is very
broad: "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water,
whether natural or artificial, permanent or temp-
orary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh,
brackish or salt, including areas of marine water
the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six
metres." Thus, the Ramsar Convention applies to
coastal zones as well as inland waters. The key
determinant for inclusion on the Ramsar List is that
sites should be selected on the basis of "their
international significance in terms of ecology,
botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology." This
provision is implemented through the Ramsar
Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International
Importance:
□ Group A - Sites containing representative,
rare, or unique wetland types
Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered
Internationally important if it contains a
representative, rare, or unique example of a
natural or near-natural wetland type found
within the appropriate biogeographic region.
Q Group B - Sites of International Importance
for conserving biological diversity
Criteria based on species and ecological
communities
Criterion 2: [The wetland] supports vulner-
able, endangered, or critically endangered
species or threatened ecological communities.
Criterion 3: [The wetland] supports pop-
ulations of plant and/or animal species
Important for maintaining the biological diver-
sity of a particular biogeographic region.
Criterion U: [The wetland] supports plant
and/or animal species at a critical stage in
their life cycles, or provides refuge during
adverse conditions.
Q Specific criteria based on waterblrds
Criterion 5: [The wetland] regularly supports
20 000 or more waterbirds.
Criterion 6: [The wetland] regularly supports
1 percent of the individuals in a population of
one species or subspecies of waterbird,
J Specific criteria based on fish
Criterion 7: [The wetland] supports a
significant proportion of indigenous fish
subspecies, species, or families, life-history
stages, species interactions and/or popul-
ations that are representative of wetland
benefits and/or values, and thereby con-
tributes to global biological diversity.
Criterion 8: [The wetland] is an important
source of food for fishes, spawning ground,
nursery, and/or migration path on which
fish stocks, either within the wetland or
elsewhere, depend.
Almost 90 percent of the current Ramsar sites have
Winter in Dalalven-
Farnebofjarden Ramsar
Site in Sweden,
designated in 2001.
27
The world's protected areas
Red-and-green macaws
[Ara chioropterus) in
Manu Biosphere Reserve,
Peru.
other forms of protected area status (for example
national parks, nature reserves, and wildlife
sanctuaries). Tliis leaves around 110 000 \<.m^ thai
do not fiave other forms of protection, other than
their designation as Wetlands of International
Importance. Ramsar site status reinforces other
forms of protected area categories by adding an
international dimension and creating additional
commitments by national governments to the
international community
Biosphere reserves
Nominated by governments, biosphere reserves are
areas of terrestrial, coastal, or marine ecosystems
that are internationally recognized under UNESCO's
Man and the Biosphere (MABI Programme. By
2007, there were 529 reserves in 105 countries. The
philosophy underlying biosphere reserves has
evolved over more than 30 years since the first
reserves were established. However, it has always
sought to combine biodiversity conservation, rural
development, and support for scientific research,
training, and education. The original intention of the
World Networl< of Biosphere Reserves in the 1970s
was to promote a systematic approach to conser-
vation, such that biosphere reserves would be
internationally designated "representative eco-
logical areas" for each of the 193 biogeographical
provinces of the Udvardy (19751 classification. The
idea was also to set up an operational networl< of
MAS sites for cooperative research in similar
ecosystem types or in areas facing comparable
ecological problems. To carry out the complem-
entary activities of nature conservation and use of
natural resources, biosphere reserves are organ-
ized into three interrelated zones, known as the
core area, the buffer zone, and the transition area
(see Figure 1.91.
In 1 995, the conservation function of biosphere
reserves evolved to embrace natural and cultural
values. New emphasis was placed on the sus-
tainable use of natural resources in buffer zones
and on the role of the outer transition area for
maintaining cultural values and for ecosystem
rehabilitation or redevelopment. The biosphere
reserve was defined as being "more than a
protected area," with a new task of providing
concrete testing grounds for regional approaches to
sustainable development in the wake of UNCED in
1992. Biosphere reserves are also viewed as field
laboratories for the implementation of the eco-
system approach advocated by the CBD. With this
expanded definition of biosphere reserves, it is
obvious that the criterion of "representativeness"
and the degree of world "coverage" are less easy
to evaluate.
With this background, it can be understood
why there are numerous "old generation" biosphere
reserves in the temperate broadleaf forests, ever-
green forests, and mountain systems, corre-
sponding to where the traditional types of protected
areas and scientific research sites (lUCN Protected
Area Management Categories I and III were first
established. As MAB is a voluntary, intergovern-
mental program, coverage of the World Network is
also linked to the willingness of countries to
participate, which has also evolved. The
participation of a number of countries since 1992,
incuding Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India,
Morocco, South Africa and Vietnam, has improved
geographic representation. The majority of
countries have adopted a pragmatic, systematic
approach at the national level to give more or less
"representative" coverage of their main environ-
mental and developmental features: examples of
national networks can be found in Argentina,
Canada, China, Cuba, France. Mexico, and the
Russian Federation. However, while MAB is an
28
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
Biosphere reserve zonation
TRANSITION AREA
BUFFER ZONE
CORE AREA
REA 1
^* Human settlements
[i] Research station
or experimental
research site
[m] Monitoring
[i] Education and training
[7] Tourism and recreation
The zonation scheme
of the Guadeloupe
Archipelago Biosphere
Reserve
Deshaies
Pointe-Noire
Bouillante
Vieux-Habitants
I I Core area
I [ Buffer zone
I 1 Transition area
Basse-Terre
FIGURE 1 .9: BIOSPHERE RESERVE ZONATION - CONCEPT AND PRACTICE
intergovernmental UN program and hence bio-
sphere reserve nominations need to be made
through national governments, increasingly the
nomination process is initiated and led by local
communities, seel<ing official international recog-
nition of their efforts. More and more biosphere
reserves contain a combination of protected area
categories and cover large landscapes and
seascapes, with an increasing number corresp-
onding to Category V (protected landscapes). Many
are set up without reference to a pre-existing
protected area.
in recent years, the MAB International
Coordinating Council has called attention to the
need to create biosphere reserA/es in areas under
intense human pressure, such as wetlands,
coastal systems and islands, and semi-arid and
arid lands. In response, new biosphere reserves
have been designated that include these features.
Examples include the Cienaga de Zapata
29
The world's protected areas
Plains zebra (Ei/uua Biosphere Reserve In Cuba, the Seaflower (San
quaggal in Serengeti Andres Archipelago) in Colombia, and the Hustal
National Parl< in Nuruu Biosphere Reserve in Mongolia. More
Tanzania. attention Is paid to in-situ conservation of plants
and animals of economic Importance (for example
the Argania spinosa woodlands of Morocco), as
well as to traditional use areas of indigenous
peoples (for example Bosawas. Nicaragua). There
IS a recent upsurge of interest in transboundary
biosphere reserves as a flexible tool for
coordinating the conservation and sustainable use
of ecosystems that straddle national boundaries:
the most recent Is the 'W Region Transboundary
Biosphere Reserve of Benin, Burkina Faso. and
Niger In West Africa.
Today, there are still noticeable gaps in global
geographic coverage, for example in the eastern
Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf region. Southern
Africa, and the Pacific Islands. Work at the national
level to fill these gaps Is spurred by regional MAB
networks - AfriMAB, ArabMAB, East Asian Bio-
sphere Reserve Network (EABRN), EuroMAB, the
South and Central Asia MAB Network (SACAMI,
IberoMAB (Latin America plus Portugal and Spain],
and the Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve
Network (SeaBRnet). Over the last few years, an
average of 1 5-20 new biosphere reserves have been
designated each year
Since 1995, a quality control examination of
biosphere reserves has been implemented
through the ten-year periodic review of the
Statutory Framework for the World Network, the
"soft" law governing the development of
biosphere reserves. As a result, many older sites
have been completely revised - expanding in size.
Involving new stakeholders, and adding new
functions. In recent years, a number of countries
have voluntarily withdrawn sites that did not and
could not meet the up-to-date biosphere reserve
criteria. Thus, the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves Is evolving in coverage and quality.
Strengthening cooperation between international
site-based agreements
Although each international site-based convention,
agreement, or program serves a different purpose,
they clearly complement one another. Failure to
coordinate approaches at national or international
levels may lead to confusion and duplication of
effort, while connecting the work associated with
these conventions and their related site-based
activities can produce considerable synergies.
The value of achieving joint implementation of
International instruments providing for in-situ
conservation has already been recognized by the
secretariats of many of these agreements and pro-
grams, and by their technical and scientific advisory
committees. In many cases there Is already bi-
lateral cooperation, as for example between the
Bern Convention and Natura 2000 in Europe, or
between the World Heritage and Ramsar Con-
ventions in their support to sites underthreat. There
is also synergy between these conventions and the
MAB Programme. In 2004, 78 biosphere reserves
included, wholly or partially, Ramsar wetlands, 75
included World Heritage sites, and 18 had both
Ramsar and World Heritage sites.
There remains significant opportunity for
developing this cooperation further, through:
□ Seeking ways to integrate implementation of
Initiatives on the ground, or at least to Increase
cooperation in implementation at the national
level.
Q Identifying opportunities for sensible multiple
designation, and for using one network to help
bridge gaps In another
□ Building collaboration on review and defining
mechanisms for deciding what are key sites.
□ Ensuring close cooperation In the review of
those sites under threat, and recommendation
on actions to be taken.
30
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
□ Seeking ways to harmonize and streamline
the nomination and reporting procedures.
□ Ensuring the improved sharing of information,
both on sites and key documents such as
strategies, guidelines, and other publications.
Q Building an improved understanding at the
national level, in particular, on hovs/ the
initiatives relate one to another
Q Improving the sharing of information between
site managers, including the sharing of case
studies and best practice.
Transboundary protected areas, biological
corridors, and networks
In 1932, the Governments of Canada and the USA
established the worlds first "international peace
park" by combining the Waterton and Glacier
National Parks on the border of the two countries in
the Rocky Mountains. Established to commemorate
the long history of peace and cooperation between
Canada and the USA, the initiative owed much to
people who saw the value of the concept for
cooperative management of humankind's natural
heritage, and for advancing international under-
standing and goodwill.
Seven years earlier, the Governments of
Poland and then Czechoslovakia had signed the
Krakow Protocol, which set the framework for
management of protected areas along their joint
border Although the first park was not fully
established until after the Second World War (and
one of the countries has since split into two), this is
still one of the more active areas of cross-border
collaboration in the protected areas of the Krkonose
and Tatra Mountains, and in the East Carpathians.
Since then, protected areas along inter-
national borders have provided a focus for coop-
eration between countries ISandwith et at., 2001). A
recent global survey IBesancon and Savy, 2005)
identified 188 internationally adjoining protected
area complexes, composed of 818 protected areas
in 112 countries. While not all of these have coop-
erative arrangements in place, this is an important
development, and a key area tor future action.
For example, in southern Africa, opportunities
are being actively sought to use transboundary
protected areas to promote cross-border coop-
eration, at the same time as promoting job creation
and biodiversity conservation. In May 2000, the
Presidents of Botswana and South Africa opened
the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, 38 000 km^ in the
southern Kalahari Desert, with joint management
and tourists moving freely from one country to
another In 2002, South Africa, Mozambique, and
Zimbabwe established the Great Limpopo
Transfrontier Park.
The simple concept of transboundary
protected areas envisages a contiguous area of
protection irrespective of political boundaries, with
resultant much-expanded ecological space. Moving
beyond this concept, there are an increasing
number of efforts to expand such connectivity - and
to further reduce the fragmentation of natural
ecosystems - through the development of biological
corridors and networks of connected protected
areas. The ecological and design aspects of such
approaches are considered in more detail in
Chapter A, but as such processes have become
established within nations, many have also taken
root in international collaborations.
A recent study analyzed 38 ecological
networks around the world (Bennett and Wit, 20011.
A good example is the Mesoamencan Biological
Corridor, a cooperative initiative between the seven
countries of Central America. While the basic
concept IS the development of a protected area
network throughout the region to ensure
conservation of its biodiversity, linked to this is a
program of capacity building, improved site
management, promoting sustainable human
development, and increased regional cooperation.
This program is attracting significant international
attention and funding.
The concept of protected areas networks does
not necessarily imply physical connections between
sites, but rather a more holistic approach to
designing systems of protected areas that ensure
representation of the full range of biodiversity and
functionality of ecosystems, with a clear vision of
longer-term viability (which may, of course, require
increased physical connections between particular
sites or ecosystem components).
A number of international initiatives are
specifically aimed at the systematic development of
networks of sites for the protection of identified
species and/or habitats, and ensuring the
protection of key features. The Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance is an
excellent example of this and has been discussed
above. Two related initiatives within Europe, the
European Union (EU) Birds and Habitats Directives
and the Bern Convention, led to the identification of
protected areas that conserve the species and
habitats listed in annexes to the agreements. The
31
The world's protected areas
resulting Emerald Network and Natura 2000 net-
work are complementary to each other. Particularly
significant is the fact that EU Directives are stat-
utory measures, and if a Member State fails to meet
its obligations in identifying and protecting sites, it
can be taken to the European Court and fined.
While these initiatives are leading to
identification of what are, in effect, core protected
areas right across Europe, another initiative, the
Pan-European Ecological Network, aims to
promote their implementation within a network
approach also incorporating buffer zones, cor-
ridors, and, where appropriate, re-created habitats.
This concept, which builds on the Netherlands
Nature Policy Plan adopted in 1990, has led to a
substantial increase in the planning and implem-
entation of a network approach to protected areas
over the last ten years, particularly in Central and
Eastern Europe. Other conservation networks have
been established for rather narrower aims. For
example, the prime aim of the East Asian-
Australasian Shorebird Site Network is to conserve
key sites for migratory shorebirds, and to enable
those involved in their protection and management
to obtain international recognition and support for
their sites and conservation efforts.
Some networks of sites have been established
for various research purposes, including the
International Long-Term Ecological Research
Network. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring
Sites directory, managed by the Global Terrestrial
Observing System, identifies a significant number of
such sites and networks. While such networks have
existed for many years, international collaboration
has recently increased significantly
One of the key issues in site networks that are
concerned with long-term monitoring and inte-
grated research is the exchange of information.
The last decade has seen substantial discussion
of mechanisms and protocols for information
sharing and exchange, as well as the development
of on-line tools for access to information from
multiple sources. This is particularly important in
the context of using protected areas as key
indicators for global environmental assessment
processes linked to achievement of biodiversity
conservation targets.
entirely buried by snow and ice, and so cold and
hostile that it has no permanent human population.
Importantly, it has no internationally recognized
sovereign states within its boundaries, although
seven nations have claimed territory: Argentina,
Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and
the UK. These claims are legal insofar as they are
incorporated into national law; some of them - such
as those of Argentina, Chile, and the UK - overlap.
All human activities on and around the
continent are governed by a system of international
agreements known as the Antarctic Treaty System.
This means that a unilateral decision-making
process for the designation of protected areas, as
seen elsewhere on the globe, does not occur here.
The Antarctic Treaty System began with the
signature in 1959 of the Antarctic Treaty itself,
negotiated following an 18-month international
study program organized by the International
Council of Scientific Unions. The original signat-
ories were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile,
France, Great Britain, Japan, New Zealand. Norway,
South Africa, the USA, and the USSR. The treaty
entered into force on 23 June 1961 and covers the
entire area south of the latitude line 60°S.
The Antarctic Treaty is open to accession by
any United Nations Member State or any other state
invited to accede by the consent of all of the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties lATCPs). The
ATCPs comprise the original 12 Parties and a
further 15 States that have subsequently acceded
to the Treaty and demonstrated their interest
in Antarctica by carrying out substantial scientific
research. In recent years, the treaty system has
become more publicly accessible, and non-
governmental environmental organizations are now
represented at most meetings through the Antarctic
and Southern Ocean Coalition lASOCl. The Treaty
remains in force indefinitely, and its objectives are
simple yet unique in international relations:
□ to demilitarize Antarctica, to establish it as a
zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of
radioactive waste, and to ensure that it is used
for peaceful purposes only;
□ to promote international scientific cooperation
in Antarctica;
□ to set aside disputes over territorial sovereignty.
ANTARCTICA - A SPECIAL CASE
The management regime for Antarctica is a unique
example of international cooperation. The continent
is a largely undisturbed wilderness region, almost
While the Antarctic Treaty itself does not contain
any provisions for protection of the environment, it
does allow for the Parties to develop agreements
on such issues. More than 200 recommendations
32
History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective
Emperor penguins
[Aptenodytes forsterii
on Ross Island,
Antarctica.
and five separate international agreements have
been adopted. These, together with the original
Treaty, are vi/hat constitute the Antarctic Treaty
System, and provide the rules that govern
activities in Antarctica. Three ot the agreements
relate specifically to protected areas:
1 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the
Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol): 1991
The Madrid Protocol, to which there are currently
29 Contracting Parties, was negotiated to provide
for comprehensive protection of the Antarctic
environment. Its objectives are to:
3 designate Antarctica as a "natural reserve,
devoted to peace and science";
Q establish environmental principles for the
conduct of all activities;
□ prohibit mining;
Q subject all activities to prior assessment of
their environmental impacts;
□ provide for the establishment of a Committee
for Environmental Protection ICEPI to advise
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
(ATCM);
33
The world's protected areas
□ require the development of contingency plans
to respond to environmental emergencies;
□ provide for tfie elaboration of rules relating to
liability for environmental damage.
Annex V of the Protocol came into force in May 2002
and is intended to rationalize the system of
protected areas into three categories: Antarctic
Specially Protected Areas lASPAs), of vifhich 66
have so far been designated; Antarctic Specially
Managed Areas, of which there is one; and Historic
Sites and Monuments, of w/hich there are 76. In
total, these cover an area of about 3 000 km^. ASPAs
are designated according to the following criteria:
Q outstanding wilderness;
1^ scientific or environmental values;
□ important or unusual plant communities or
habitats;
□ unusual landforms;
□ historic, aesthetic, or wilderness values.
A permit of entry is required to enter such an area, and all
activities must be conducted in accordance with the area
management plan. Antarctic Specially Managed Areas
require the coordination of human activities in order to
avoid the risk of mutual interference, and are regulated by
a code of conduct set out in their management plans.
Historic Sites and Monuments are designated in order to
preserve and protect historic sites and monuments
from damage.
Under the Antarctic Treaty System, a pro-
posing party can nominate a site for protection by
submitting a draft management plan to the CEP
in accordance with established guidelines. The CEP
has established a contact group to review the draft,
which is chaired by the proponent and includes the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and,
where marine areas are involved, the Convention for
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources. On the acceptance of the management
plan (following a review process taking 12 months
or morel, the revised management plan becomes
law under the Agreed Measures.
2 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources ICCAMLRI: 1980
CCAMLR aims to conserve Antarctic marine living
resources, including their rational use. There are
currently 31 Parties to the Convention, 24 of
whom are members of the CCAMLR Commission.
The Convention is concerned not only with the
regulation of fishing but is a pioneer of the
ecosystem approach, and considers the Antarctic
ecosystem and the Southern Ocean as a suite of
interlinked systems. The need for CCAMLR was
identified following an increase in krill fishing in the
early 1970s. Krill move beyond the 60°S line of
latitude Ithe Antarctic Treaty Areal but within an
area known as the Antarctic Convergence. The
CCAMLR area therefore extends beyond that
specified under the Antarctic Treaty and is
applicable to the Antarctic Convergence. Two other
important fisheries - for Patagonian toothfish and
icefish - are managed within this region. Strict
measures are in place to reduce bycatch and
seabird mortality Under the Convention, CCAMLR
Ecosystem Monitoring Programme ICEMP) sites
can be designated. Entry to CEMP sites is prohibited
without a permit, and an appropriate authority can
only issue permits for its own nationals. Each CEMP
site has a management plan that must be complied
with. Currently there are two such sites: Seal
Islands, South Shetland Islands (90 hectares], and
Cape Shirreff and Telmo Island, South Shetland
Islands (3A7 hectares].
3 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Seals ICCAS]: 1972
The aims of CCAS are to promote and achieve the
protection, scientific study, and rational use of
Antarctic seals, and to maintain a satisfactory
balance within the ecological system of the
Antarctic. The Convention has 17 Contracting
Parties and has three sites covering some
215 OOP km2 under its jurisdiction. These areas, in
which it is forbidden to kill or capture seals, are
breeding sites or sites where long-term scientific
research on seals is carried out.
A GLOBAL REVIEW
Although their lineage traces back at least two
millennia, the final decades of the 20th century
represented the coming of age of protected areas as
a global category of land use and management. This
period saw vast increases in the numbers of
protected areas and a burgeoning of international
efforts to support, encourage and harmonize site
designation and management. A phenomenal
growth has happened as a direct result of growing
knowledge of the threats to the natural world, as
well as increasing awareness of the considerable
values that protected areas bring to humanity The
result is a vast estate, covering almost 13 percent
of the Earth's land surface where, at least in
36
History, Definitions. Values and Global Perspective
Melchlor Island,
Antarctica.
principle, natural processes are allowed to continue
unaltered or are managed in a sustainable nnanner
Collaboration between peoples, partners, organ-
izations and countries enable us to see this once
highly fragmented estate, for the first time, as a
global network. In some places direct or close
connections enable free movement of species and
wider maintenance of ecological processes, but the
networking extends beyond the ecological, to the
collaboration in management, in support, and in the
sharing of knowledge.
In the remainder of this work we examine the
phenomenon of the global protected areas estate in
more detail. Chapter 2 takes an ecological
perspective, looking at species and the major
biomes that make up the Earth's surface and
considering both the particular challenges they
face, and the efforts to date in developing protected
areas to represent this biodiversity Chapter 3
provides a framework for considering the broad
array of human threats to biodiversity, and
considers the particular changes that individual
threats pose in protected areas design and
management. Chapters U and 5 look at protected
areas from the perspective of design and
management, considering how systems can be
designed to support a functioning ecology, and
managed to support human needs, while rising to
the challenges of the many and varied threats that
impinge upon them. Chapter 6 focuses on the
specific challenges facing the marine environment,
currently massively under-represented, but
receiving growing attention at national and
international levels. Chapter 7 concludes the global
review with an assessment of the prospects for
effectively maintaining the world's protected areas.
Following this global review, the book focuses on
protected areas around the world provided by
regional experts.
35
The world's protected areas
Chapter 2
Protected areas
and biodiversity
Contributors: M. JenkinsiTerrestnai species coverage by the global protected area network: A. Rodrigues et al.,- How
WWF is using large-scale biogeographic approaches: J. Morrison: Habitat coverage by the protected areas network
lintroductionl: I- Lysenko and M. Spalding; Forests: M. Jenkins and V. Kaposi Non-forested habitats lintroductionl,
grasslands and savannas, and deserts and semi deserts: Henwood et al.; Wetlands: W. Darwall and C. Revenga:
Caves and karst: E. Hamilton-Smith; Mountain ecosystems: L Hamilton et al; Biodiversity conservation in the
Himalayas: T.F. Allnutet al; Marine and coastal ecosystems: M. Spalding.
An historical perspective
As the outline presented in Chapter 1 has made
clear, the global protected area network has, with
exceptions in a few countries, developed in an ad
hoc rather than in a planned and systematic
manner. From the very beginning, protected areas
have been established for a range of different
reasons and were, and continue to be, expected to
serve different and sometimes conflicting functions.
Historically, two major impulses in the
designation of protected areas can be identified. The
first is essentially concerned with landscape and
notions of the wild and untamed, but is in itself
the product of different ideas and ideals. In the
modern world this can be traced back to the
growing alienation from nature associated with the
Industrial Revolution and the rapid growth in
urbanization during the 19th century. During the
latter half of that century the need was increasingly
felt both for the provision of open space that could
be enjoyed for its own sake, particularly by urb-
anized working peoples, and for the protection from
development of areas of outstanding natural
beauty, particularly those with dramatic landscape
features. Although these two roles were essentially
seen as complementary, the emphasis in individual
cases might differ - the Royal National Park in
Australia is an early example of an area set aside
primarily to provide open space for the inhabitants
of a large conurbation ISydneyl, while the Grand
Canyon and the geysers of Yellowstone in the USA
are early examples of landscapes protected in the
public name, but primarily for their own sake.
During the 20th century, these two functions,
particularly the latter, continued to be among the
most important reasons for the designation of
protected areas almost everywhere, as exemplified
by many of the world's best known national parks,
such as Torres del Paine in Chile (protected
primarily for its mountain peaks and glaciers!,
Iguacu/lguazu on the Brazilian/Argentinean border
Iwaterfallsl, Gunung Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysia
llimestone caves), and Uluru, Australia Ithe mega-
lithic Ayres Rock). In colonial Africa the notion of
national phenomena worth preserving on a large
scale was extended to include dramatic wildlife
concentrations, perhaps most famously in
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, and the assoc-
iated Masai Mara Game Reserve, Kenya. By and
large, however, the presence of populations or
assemblages of particular species of animals,
plants, or other organisms has played relatively
little part in the choice of such areas.
The second main historical impulse in the
setting aside of areas was to ensure control over
some harvested living natural resource. On land the
most important such resources are game and
timber It is not surprising, therefore, that many of
the earliest accounts of protected areas are of what
are essentially game reserves and forest reserves.
In almost all cases for which we have evidence, the
intention behind the setting aside of the former was
not to manage game species for maximum
productivity, that is as an important source of
protein for society at large, but to maintain
populations of them as quarry for hunting by elites.
36
Protected areas and biodiversity
Grand Canyon National Park World Heritage Site, USA, which started as a federal forest reserve in 1893.
37
The world's protected areas
Yellowstone National
Park, USA, 1881.
This concept was Introduced widely in the European
colonies in the 19th century and the first half of the
20th century, particularly in the French and British
empires, so that many existing protected areas
in the former colonies have their origins in hunting
or game reserves {Reserves de chasse and
Reserves de faune], and indeed often retain such
designations. The focus for their establishment was
usually the presence of substantial populations of
large mammals, particularly ungulates, but also
sometimes of game birds such as pheasants,
grouse, bustards, and various kinds of waterfowl.
Governments everywhere have also had a long
tradition of tal<ing control of a nations timber
resources, with much of the forest estate in many
countries considered government land (often
regardless of any traditional tenure claims], and
with timber production and processing either
directly under government control or, more often,
operated through a system of licensing concess-
ionaires. Under many such systems, the forest
estate was divided into a number of categories, for
example areas designated for clear-felling or
conversion to plantation forestry, areas identified
for selective timber production, and forest reserves
not intended for commercial timber extraction. The
last of these may have been set aside because the
terrain was considered unsuitable for most kinds of
logging, because the areas were perceived to be of
importance for the protection of water catchments,
or as samples of particular forest types, of interest
in practical forestry studies. Typically, only small
areas were set aside as samples of forest types.
As well as these two main motivations for the
designation of protected areas, a third, historically
less prominent, reason has been the setting aside of
areas primarily for scientific interest. Such areas
may contain representative samples of different
habitats or ecosystems, or unusual and particularly
interesting species or species assemblages, or
geophysical phenomena. Sometimes the factors
leading to their designation maybe of wider interest
- that is, they may also be considered important
public attractions in the way described above - but
often they may not.
Relatively early examples of this systematic,
science-based approach can be found in the
zapovednik system established in the former Soviet
Union from 1919 onwards, and in the network of
reserves set up in various parts of the world under
the French colonial regime. In Madagascar, for
example, a network of strict nature reserves
{Reserves naturetles integrates] was established,
mainly in the 1930s, containing representative
samples of the major vegetation types present on
this extraordinarily diverse island. These were
intended essentially as a resource for scientific
research with access granted only under strictly
controlled permit. In addition, a small number of
special reserves [Reserves speciates] were set up
to protect features considered of particular interest,
for example the Reserve speciate de Perinet,
established specifically to protect an accessible
population of indri {Indri indri], the worlds largest
lemur species. These examples notwithstanding,
until the second half of the 20th century, relatively
few protected areas were established for what
might be regarded as pure, science-based conser-
vation ends, that is without other considerations
being taken into account.
Moreover, the establishment of protected
areas, for whatever reason, has always had to be
made in the face of other competing interests.
Allocation of land to this function has generally
been accorded a low priority, particularly where that
land is of potentially high value for other purposes,
for example is agriculturally productive, rich in
mineral resources, or well sited for residential or
38
Protected areas and biodiversity
industrial development. This means that such areas
are generally poorly represented in protected area
networl<s. Conversely, networks tend to have heavy
representation of areas that are not considered
valuable for other uses, or at least v/ere not
considered so at the time they were gazetted. Such
areas tend to be infertile, with difficult terrain, and
often isolated. Where they are inhabited, the
inhabitants are (or werel usually people with little
political power
Modem approaches
As we have seen in the previous chapter, the past
few decades have seen great changes in the way
that global environmental issues and the roles
of protected areas are perceived, or at least
articulated. I^ost importantly, discussions about
nature and living natural resources are almost
invariably cast in the rubric of biological diversity, or
"biodiversity", a term whose meaning has become
more diffuse as its political currency has grown. The
major international expression of this has been
the negotiation and entry into force in 1993 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDI, one of
the three so-called Rio conventions that emerged
from the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development lUNCED, or the
Earth Summit!.
In 2004, the Parties to the Convention
decided on an extensive and ambitious work
program on protected areas. In this they expanded
the requirement for the development of national
protected area systems as set out in Article 8 of
the convention to a call to support the estab-
lishment and maintenance of a comprehensive,
effectively managed, and ecologically repre-
sentative global network of protected areas. In
particular they recognized that such a network
would play a vital contribution in meeting the
target agreed by the Parties to the Convention and
echoed at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development of having mechanisms in place by
2010 to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity
loss at the global, regional, and national levels,
and to establish an effective global marine
protected area network by 2012. The program of
action developed in 2003 as part of the Vth World
Parks Congress similarly urged governments,
non-governmental organizations, and local
communities to maximize representation and
persistence of biodiversity in comprehensive
protected area networks.
These decisions, which reflect the current
thinking of the world's governments and the
protected areas community at large, have the effect
of highlighting the role of protected areas in
maintaining biodiversity, and have effectively
brought the science-based approach, which was
traditionally regarded as of minor importance, to
the fore.
Central questions in assessing the role of
protected areas in meeting the 2010 target, applic-
able at all levels from the local to the global, are:
J How well does any existing protected area
network cover biodiversity?
3 What are the major gaps in the network?
Because protected area networks were not
usually designed to carry out this function of
maintaining biodiversity, it is to be expected that
there will generally be gaps. Identifying what
these gaps are is not straightforward, chiefly
because biodiversity is not a single entity. Rather,
it is an expression of the extraordinary complexity
and variability of living systems at all scales and at
a range of hierarchical levels from the molecular
through individuals, populations, and species to
communities, habitats, and ecosystems, and
ultimately the entire biosphere.
There are many ways to try to capture this
variability and express it in a quantifiable way Most
generally, and as singled out by the CBD, three
The indri {Indri indri],
endemic to Madagascar,
is the world's largest
lemur species.
39
The world's protected areas
different levels are considered important: genes,
species, and ecosystems. Altfiough genetic diversity
is recognized as a fundamental underpinning of
organismal diversity, it has to date proved very diffi-
cult to come up vi/ith useful measures for analysis.
Most current approacfies to assessing hovj v^ell
covered biodiversity is in protected areas therefore
emphasize either species or habitats, communities,
and ecosystems.
Ultimately, it is difficult to separate the two
approaches: habitats and communities are often
defined largely on the basis of their predominant
species, while ecosystems can be considered as
populations of species, the interactions between
them, and the physical environment in which they
exist. Nevertheless, these approaches do differ, and
each has its advantages and disadvantages, as is
discussed in further detail below.
Identifying and filling gaps
Any analysis of coverage should result in identifying
major gaps - that is species, groups of species,
habitats, communities, or ecosystems that are
believed not to be represented or are inadequately
represented in protected areas. Even given the
various constraints outlined above, identifying gaps
is, in theory at least, relatively straightforward.
Determining how these gaps should be filled and, in
particular, identifying priorities - that is singling out
the most important areas to be protected - is a
different matter entirely.
This is largely because it is difficult to reach
agreement over which aspects or components of
biodiversity are considered the most important. This
applies both to judgments of the intrinsic value of
the particular components being discussed and to
the perceived urgency or intensity of the need to
protect them. Different approaches may emphasize
some or all of the following:
Q areas of occurrence of individual species,
particularly large, charismatic, and threatened
ones;
□ areas that are particularly rich in species;
□ areas that have a significant number of local or
endemic species;
Q areas that contain unique communities,
ecosystems, or landscape features;
□ representative samples of identified comm-
unities, ecosystems, or landscapes.
There may also be debate as to whether it is more
important or worthwhile to invest in vestigial or
highly threatened systems or to concentrate efforts
on maintaining still healthy and expansive systems
or populations.
The plan of action developed in 2003 as part of
the Vth World Parks Congress drew on a number of
different approaches to set a series of species- and
habitat-based targets:
1. All globally threatened species are effectively
conserved in situ with the following immediate
targets:
□ All critically endangered and endangered
species confined to single sites are effectively
conserved in situ by 2006.
G All other critically endangered and endan-
gered species are effectively conserved in situ
by 2008.
□ All other globally threatened species are
effectively conserved in situ by 2010.
□ Sites that support internationally important
populations of congregatory and/or restricted-
range species are adequately conserved by
2010.
2. Viable representations of every terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine ecosystem are effectively
conserved within protected areas, with the following
immediate targets:
Q A common global framework for classifying
and assessing the status of ecosystems is
established by 2006.
CJ Quantitative targets for each ecosystem type
are identified by 2008.
□ Viable representations of every threatened or
underprotected ecosystem are conserved by
2010.
W/hichever aspect, or combination of aspects, is
chosen - it may be all the species in a particular
plant family, or different vegetation communities in
a particular region - information is needed on the
spatial distribution of those components and on
the distribution of existing protected areas in the
district under analysis. On the basis of this, using
more or less complicated algorithms, areas of high
priority for protection can be identified.
A number of different approaches has been
used, of which three of the most commonly applied
are minimum-set analysis, richness, and
irreplaceability Minimum-set analysis attempts to
identify the smallest set of areas, which together
contain at least one example of each of the
elements of biodiversity chosen; richness priorit-
AO
Protected areas and biodiversity
A cheetah [Acinonyx
jubatus], Serengeti
National Park, Tanzania.
izes sites on the basis of the number of unprotected
elements that would be protected if that site were
protected; irreplaceability prioritizes sites on the
basis of the number of elements of biodiversity that
would be lost within the planning region if that site
were lost.
Each approach has advantages, but each also
has limitations when applied in the real world. As
noted above, it is rare for there to be complete
information on even limited subsets of biodiversity
in any given region. This is particularly the case in
the tropics. Where detailed information is available,
determining optimal solutions to protected area
networl< design rapidly becomes computationally
intractable unless scenarios are quite simple (i.e. a
small number of elements and a small number of
areasl. There is also no single, unequivocal way of
combining priorities established through analysis of
different subsets of biodiversity: in a particular
region, priorities determined through analysis of.
say. the distribution of bird species will undoubtedly
be different from those established using plant
communities. Most importantly, it is often very
difficult for such analyses to take into account real-
life constraints on the availability of sites for
protection, the costs of obtaining and maintaining
such sites, and the fact that the landscape, in its
broadest sense, is constantly changing, so that, for
example, a site identified as high priority in a one-
off analysis may no longer be of value once the
opportunity arises for protecting it.
It Is. nevertheless, clear that systematic
planning In creating networks of protected areas
is preferable to a completely opportunistic or ad
hoc approach and. where certain conditions can
be satisfied, these techniques can and have been
successfully applied on the ground.
The following sections outline species-based,
blogeographic. and habitat-based analyses of
protected area coverage at the global level.
Species-based approaches
Species-based approaches have the advantage that
species are in general the best characterized
components of biodiversity, at least when it comes
to groups such as animals and plants. In these
cases, there is normally reasonable agreement on
what constitutes a species and it Is generally
possible to distinguish one from another It could
theoretically be possible, therefore, to enumerate
all the species in a given area and identify those that
have populations included in protected areas and
those that do not. However. In reality this is not
possible because our knowledge of species and
their distributions is incomplete.
To date, some 1.7 million species of all forms
of life have been named and described scientifically
This is believed to include a high proportion of the
true number of the worlds larger terrestrial plants
and animals, particularly the so-called higher
vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians), but a far smaller percentage of other
groups, especially invertebrates, fungi, and micro-
organisms, which between them comprise the vast
majority of living species. Estimates for the total
number of species on Earth vary widely, but there
may be between 10 and 20 million In total, the
majority of these invertebrate animals. Even among
41
The world's protected areas
Areas with high diversity
of butterflies do not
necessarily indicate high
diversity of birds.
the best known taxonomic groups (birds and
mammals) new discoveries are stiU regularly being
made. Detailed or complete information on distri-
bution is available for only a very small proportion of
described species - again mostly large and conspi-
cuous ones - and there is reliable information on
total population numbers for even fewer
Knowledge of biodiversity is geographically, as
well as taxonomically, biased. Most information is
available for terrestrial temperate regions, with far
less known about other parts of the world,
particularly the tropics and aquatic regions. Even
within temperate latitudes, there are extremely few
areas, or sites, for which anything approaching
complete species inventories exist, even if micro-
organisms are excluded. Moreover, such invent-
ories as do exist for particular sites are often
unpublished or hidden in the "gray literature" and
may use different taxonomic systems. Collating,
reconciling, and then analyzing this information is a
major undertaking, although one that is becoming
easier thanks to the spread of the internet.
Because of these limitations, analyses of
coverage of species by protected areas invariably
use surrogate measures for the whole of
biodiversity, usually particular taxonomic groups
that are well characterized in that area, often birds,
sometimes other vertebrates (especially mam-
mals], butterflies, and some groups of vascular
plants. The assumption is that knowledge of these
groups may give some indication of how well
covered other taxonomic groups are. Empirical
tests of this assumption, for example in the UK and
South Africa, indicate that it often does not hold up
very well - that is, for example, areas with a high
diversity of butterflies do not necessarily have a
high diversity of birds, and vice versa. However,
other findings have been somewhat more
encouraging - in Uganda, for example, it was found
that protected areas that were rich in one group of
species tended also to be rich in others.
Species-based analyses should, ideally, be
based on actual records of species in protected
areas. There is generally not enough information to
do this, other than in a few intensively studied parts
of the world. The alternative, much more approx-
imate, approach is to map distributions of species
using available information and then to overlay
maps of protected areas on to these, in a way
similar to that widely used for assessing habitat
coverage. This approach allows first-order assess-
ments of coverage, but in most cases is of limited
accuracy. This is because, unless extremely detailed
data are available, distributions of species are
normally mapped as polygons showing the limits of
their ranges. These ranges may be based entirely
on field observations or may be extrapolated from
them, generally using models of habitat suitability
based on parameters such as climate, altitude, and
soil type. Because species are virtually never
ubiquitous within these limits, however the latter
are derived, there is no guarantee that they will
occur in any given protected area within or
overlapping with the mapped range.
Terrestrial species coverage by the global
protected areas network
Although global level data on species distributions
are necessarily approximate, they can still yield
valuable insights into the effectiveness of the
existing protected area network in maintaining
biodiversity, as in the global gap analysis carried out
by Rodrigues et al. (20031. The analysis combined
62
Protected areas and biodiversity
four very large datasets that are themselves the
culmination of information-gathering efforts by
thousands of individuals and dozens of institutions:
the World Database on Protected Areas IWDPA);
and global distribution maps for all mammals,
amphibians, and globally threatened birds. The data
on the world's globally threatened bird species were
compiled by the BirdLife International partnership
(BirdLife International. 2000L
Of the 1 183 globally threatened birds included
in this analysis. 182 are critically endangered, 321
are endangered, and 680 are considered vulnerable
species. Distribution maps for all mammal species
were compiled as part of the lUCN Global Mammal
Assessment (Boitani and Amori. unpublished;
Sechrest. unpublished: Boitani et ai, 1999;
Patterson et ai, 2003). All maps used were in draft
form. In total. U 734 mammal species were
analyzed, including 131 critically endangered
species, 229 endangered, and 618 vulnerable
species. Distribution maps for amphibian species
have been compiled by the ongoing Global
Amphibian Assessment IIUCN-SSC and CI-CABS.
20031. with NatureServe providing the distribution
maps for species in North America. Part of these
correspond to reviewed data; others were still
to be formally reviewed by experts. The analysis
included 5 25A amphibians, including 291 critically
endangered. A9A endangered, and 682 vulnerable
species.
The analysis overlaid species distribution
maps on to protected area maps using geographic
information systems IGISI to assess how well each
species is represented in protected areas, and to
identify gap species that are not covered in any part
of their ranges.
The spatial units used in this analysis were
of two types: protected and unprotected sites.
Protected sites are individual or clusters of
several protected areas, of variable area, while
unprotected sites correspond to half-degree cells
I- 3 000 km' near the equator] from which protected
sites were cut (i.e. there is no spatial overlap
between protected and unprotected sites).
Assessment of the highest priority areas for
consolidation and expansion of the protected area
network was based on information regarding
irreplaceability and threat IPressey, Johnson and
Wilson, 1994; Margules and Pressey. 2000). Threat
was calculated as the number of threatened species
present at a site, weighting those with higher
extinction risk. Sites of exceptional irreplaceability
and threat were identified as the most urgent
conservation priorities IPressey and Taffs. 2001).
These include currently protected sites, which are
clear priorities for strengthening the existing
global network of protected areas, and unprotected
sites which present priorities for the expansion of
the global network.
The global gap analysis found on the basis of
available data that at least 1 310 species 1709 at risk
of extinction) were not protected in any part of their
ranges. In addition, a few thousand other bird,
mammal, and amphibian species were represented
only by marginal overlaps with existing protected
areas. Amphibians overall were the group least
covered by protected areas compared with birds or
mammals. This is mainly due to their smaller
ranges (higher levels of endemism), but also
because they have received much less conservation
attention than either birds or mammals.
Tropical forests, especially in regions of
topographic complexity, and islands make up most
of the areas highlighted as urgent priorities, both
for strengthening and for the expansion of the
global network of protected areas. Proportionally,
Asia is a higher priority for the expansion of the
global network, while the need for strengthening
the existing network is mainly emphasized in Africa
and South America.
Areas highlighted as urgent priorities for the
expansion of the global protected area network
(Figure 2.2) are mainly located in regions long
recognized to be centers of endemism that are
suffering high levels of habitat destruction. In the
Americas, these include parts of Central America,
the Caribbean, the Andes, and the Atlantic Forest
region of Brazil. In Africa, identified important
areas are mainly located in eastern Madagascar,
the Cape Fynbos, the Succulent Karoo, Maputaland-
Pondoland, the Eastern Arc, the Albertine Rift, the
Ethiopian Highlands, the Cameroon Highlands, and
the Kenyan Highlands. In Asia, highlighted areas
include the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, the east-
ern Himalayas, southwest, southeast, and central
China, and continental and insular Southeast Asia.
In Australia, urgent priority areas are mainly around
coastal areas, particularly the Queensland Wet
Tropics, the Kimberley tropical savanna, and the
southeastern and southwestern regions.
These areas should be priorities for finer scale
assessments, to investigate the feasibility and
viability of expanding the existing protected area
network while effectively protecting the species
43
The world's protected areas
Figure 2.1: Global
distribution of protected
sites of high urgency for
consolidating the global
network of protected
areas in covering
mammals, amphibians
and threatened birds.
These are protected
sites (single or clusters
of several protected
areasi of high
irreplaceability, for
which it is fundamental
to ensure that proper
management is in place.
in each area that trigger their high values of
irreplaceability and threat.
Protected sites identified as urgent for the
consolidation of the global network (Figure 2.11
Include some large complexes of protected areas in
western North America, the Guyana Shield of South
America, and areas In tropical and subtropical
Africa. In addition, many smaller protected areas
Inot so visible at the global scale of Figure 2.1) are
also highlighted as highly irreplaceable and
threatened among the global network of protected
areas, and these tend to be located In centers of
endemism such as Southeast Asia, the Western
Ghats (India], Madagascar, the Atlantic Forests of
Brazil, the Andes, and Central America.
The results obtained in this analysis clearly
demonstrate that the number of endemic species In
a country is a powerful predictor of how much more
protection is needed to ensure coverage of
vertebrate species (Figure 2.2).
Habitat and ecosystem-based approaches
An alternative to the species-based approach is
to use higher levels of biological organization:
communities, habitats, and ecosystems. There are
a number of advantages. In the first instance
they may help to capture more of the ecological
processes that contribute to the maintenance of
ecosystem function (although this is still under
debate). Secondly, they can In theory be mapped
Figure 2.2: Global
distribution of
unprotected sites (at
half-degree resolution)
of high urgency for the
expansion of the global
network of protected
areas, in order to cover
mammals, amphibians
and threatened birds.
lA
Protected areas and biodiversity
more easily over wide areas, particularly in light of
the growing availability of remote-sensing data, and
the growing sophistication of techniques for
analyzing such data.
There are, however, persistent and non-trivial
problems of definition and classification. Certainly,
at global level, a universally accepted global habitat
classification system has yet to be developed. This is
not surprising - these systems are all essentially
predicated on the assumption that the natural
environment can be divided into a series of discrete,
discontinuous units that can be given a label, either
one that is highly simplified, for example forest or
wetland, or a detailed and specific one, such as
mixed alder-willow scrub.
In reality, the natural world is generally better
represented as a highly variable natural continuum,
where it is often virtually impossible to say where
one habitat type begins and another ends. Even
where simplified categories are used, it is extremely
difficult to define and delimit them in a universally
agreed way: for example, it is not possible to deter-
mine for how long, how regularly, and how inten-
sively an area must be flooded before it can be
classified as aquatic rather than as a terrestrial
ecosystem. Similarly, the amount of tree cover
present before an area is classified as a woodland
rather than, say, a savanna or parkland, cannot be
defined other than arbitrarily Furthermore, almost
all parts of the terrestrial world, at least, are to
BOX 2.1 : WWF AND LARGE-SCALE BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Comprehensive representation of existing habitats in protected area networks is one of the key goals of
biodiversity conservation. Maps of biogeographic units at various scales can provide a useful framework
for assessing such representation. They take into account the fact that the distributions of species and
biological communities rarely coincide with political units and they approximate the dynamic arena within
which ecological processes most strongly interact. This means that designing protected area networks
within them is one of the best ways of ensuring the persistence of populations and ecological processes,
although it does present significant challenges in working across administrative boundaries ISoule and
Terborgh, 1999; Groves et at. 2000; Margules and Pressey, 2000). Since the late 1990s, WWF has devoted a
substantial proportion of its energies and resources to an effort now called Ecoregion Conservation, which
uses what are essentially biogeographic regions for conservation planning. WWF has defined an ecoregion
as a large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities
that; share a large majority of their species and ecological dynamics; share similar environmental
conditions; and interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. Ecoregion
Conservation aims to address the four goals of biodiversity conservation as espoused by Noss (1992):
representation of all habitats in protected areas; maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes;
maintenance of viable populations of all species, and accounting for environmental change.
Believing that none of the existing global maps of biogeographic units provided the appropriate
tractable spatial resolution necessary to plan protected area networks, WWF went about creating its own
map of terrestrial ecoregions. For this it relied predominantly on a patchwork of existing regional
classification systems used as a baseline for ecoregion boundaries, combined with other data and
consultations from regional experts. Most existing systems required aggregating or dividing units, or
modifying boundaries. It was acknowledged from the beginning that no single biogeographic framework
would be optimal for all taxa - the WWF ecoregions reflect what the organization considered the best
compromise for as many taxa as possible. It recognizes 825 terrestrial ecoregions around the globe, with
a mean size of around 150 000 km^ and a median size of just over 56 000 km^. Working with The Nature
ConseiA/ancy and other partners, comprehensive maps for freshwater and marine ecoregions have now
also been developed.
WWF's Global 200 analysis [Olson and Dinerstein, 1998) relied heavily on the comprehensive
terrestrial ecoregion framework. The Global 200 analysis scored the terrestrial ecoregions for species
endemism, richness, and intact ecological phenomena. It also identified similarly outstanding freshwater
and marine regions of the world. The resulting map of 238 ecoregions has become WWF's roadmap for the
focus of its conservation activities, at least for the next decade or so.
i5
The world's protected areas
some extent modified by human activity. Habitat
classification systems tiave to decide whether to
take this into account - describe actual conditions in
any given place - or try to shovif potential conditions,
that is the kind of habitat that might historically
have been present or that might be expected in the
absence of human influence.
Habitat or ecosystem analysis at the global
level is also not easy to relate to other levels of
biodiversity, particularly species. This is because
similar habitats in different parts of the w/orld may
be formed by quite different assemblages of
species. Because of this, what proportion of the
world's tropical moist forests, for example, are
protected gives relatively little information in itself
on what proportion of the world's tropical moist
forest species are protected.
Performing habitat or ecosystem analyses at
continental, regional, or smaller scales helps to
overcome this problem. In these cases, similar hab-
itats are likely to share a significant proportion of
their species, so that there is likely to be quite a
good relationship between assessments of cover-
age of biodiversity at the habitat or ecosystem level
and that at the species level. In addition, it is easier
to produce consistent and widely acceptable habitat
classification systems and associated maps at
these scales. This regional, habitat-based approach
was first used in the protected areas systems
reviews undertaken in the 1980s by lUCN - The
World Conservation Union.
Biogeographic approaches
Biogeographic approaches are essentially exten-
sions of regional habitat- or ecosystem-based
approaches. They are based on the observation
that particular groups or associations of plants
and animals are characteristic of particular
regions and often confined to them. The protected
area coverage in each of these regions is then
measured, with the assumption that this will pro-
vide a measure of the degree of protection aff-
orded to those groups or associations. Typically,
such biogeographical approaches have a hier-
archical character, and can be used to analyze
coverage at a range of spatial scales.
For many years, the basis for such analyses
when carried out for terrestrial ecosystems was
that developed by Udvardy in 1975. Under this the
land area of the world is divided into eight
biogeographical realms, continent or subcontinent-
sized areas, which are further subdivided into 193
provinces defined by significant differences in flora,
fauna, or vegetation structure. The provinces range
in size from a mere 11 km' in the case of South
Trinidade Province in the Neotropical Realm to over
10 million km' in the case of Maudlandia Province,
one of the two provinces in the Antarctic Realm.
More recently, this concept has been modified and
refined in the ecoregion approach developed
principally by WWF, the global conservation
organization Isee Box 2.1).
HABITAT COVERAGE BY THE PROTECTED AREAS
NETWORK
Assessing habitat coverage of protected areas at the
global level requires, at the very least, a compre-
hensive and consistent habitat classification system
that can be applied across the world, a reliable
global map based on such a system, and a similarly
reliable global map of protected areas. Each of
these presents difficulties.
Once a single global habitat classification
system is agreed upon, a reliable map needs to be
created using such a system. Before the widespread
availability of remote-sensing technologies this was
quite problematic; although there were many
excellent national or local land-cover or habitat
maps, these had been produced using a whole
range of different classification systems, with
different methodologies and with different degrees
of accuracy and resolution. Reconciling these to
produce one consistent system applicable across
national boundaries proved challenging.
Remote-sensing technologies have, in the last
two decades, revolutionized our ability to observe
the surface of the planet and to monitor changes.
However, their use still depends on careful analysis
and on the application of agreed classification
systems. For the analysis used in this volume the
Global Landcover 2000 IGLC2000I dataset was
taken as a starting point for the land-based habitat
information. This dataset was developed through
the European Commission's Joint Research Centre
and has been produced through a partnership of
more than 30 institutions. It is based on SPOT A
satellite imagery taken between November 1999
and December 2000. In order to establish a
consistent base, all participants have agreed to
work towards a globally consistent legend based on
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) Land Cover Classification
System (FAO 20001. At the same time, the use of
considerable regional expertise has ensured a
66
Protected areas and biodiversity
TABLE 2.1 : MAJOR HABITAT TYPES, THEIR GLOBAL COVERAGE, AND THE AREAS PROTECTED
(in all sites including lUCN Categories l-VI and those with no category assigned!
Habitat
Total area
Ikm2)
Area protected
|km2)
lUCN categories
l-IV Ikm2)
% of total % of total
area protected in l-IV
Temperate and boreal
needleleaf forest
10 749 000
1 539 000
1 263 000
14
12
Temperate broadleaf
and mixed forest'
10 322 000
1 256 000
1 107 000
12
11
Tropical moist forest
12 104 000
2 798 000
1 579 000
23
13
Tropical dry forest
3 172 000
342 000
230 000
11
7
Open forests^
3 815 000
605 000
455 000
16
12
Savanna
13 010 000
1 653 000
1 178 000
13
9
Grassland Itemperatel
7 551 000
1 175 000
1 094 000
16
14
Warm desert and
semi-desert
22 269 000
2 242 000
2 123 000
10
10
Cold desert and
semi-desert
7 285 000
606 000
550 000
8
8
Tundra
4 682 000
710 000
668 000
15
14
Shrubland
6 970 000
914 000
621 000
13
9
Inland waters-^
5 078 000
628 000
545 000
12
11
Permanent snow
and ice
15 404 000
1 130 000
1 118 000
7
7
Predominantly
anthropoqenic^
24 581 000
1 413 000
1 020 000
6
4
Ocean
362 630 000
509 622 000
1 639 000
1 578 000
0.5
0.4
Total
18 650 000
15129 000
4
3
1 Includes some subtropical and tropical predominantly needleleaf forest.
2 Includes tropical savanna/tree-cover mosaic,
3 Includes non-marine water bodies, wetland, and mangroves
4 Includes cropland and natural vegetation mosaic,
NB Figures for area protected, rounded to ttie nearest ttiousand km^ are based on the World Database on Protected Areas 2003
Table excludes some 400 ODD km' for whictl no habitat data are available.
much greater degree of quality assurance than
earlier land-cover assessments, while information
from other sensors has been used to refine
particular elements (Barolome etal., 20021.
Although GLC2000 was a base, various
alterations were made in this map in order to
produce habitat classes that were more closely
allied to the habitat classes used by the contributors
to this chapter. There were also some gaps in the
overall coverage provided by this map, most notably
for the far northern parts of Eurasia and some of
the island groups. It was possible to fill some of
these gaps with data available at UNEP-WCIVIC from
other sources, in addition to the basic habitat
analysis, some additional analyses using non-
GLC2000 data were undertaken. These included
those of mountains and marine environments and
these are presented in the relevant sections of
this chapter
Like all datasets, the GLC2000 contains error.
Probably the greatest source of error comes from
problems of interpretation and, despite the
considerable involvement of regional expertise in
the development of habitat layers, ground-truthing
on a project of this scale is limited. It is therefore
quite likely that some areas have been mis-
identified. The resolution of the image analysis
further compounds such error With findings being
summarized by single square kilometer (km'l
pixels, patchwork landscapes and transitional areas
can create contusing spectral signatures, leading to
misidentification. Fine-scale habitats, such as
riparian and coastal habitats, are generally missed
or underrepresented. Finally there may be errors of
47
The world's protected areas
Mangrove forests lining
a tidal creek, Bowling
Green Bay National
Park, Queensland,
Australia (leftl.
Mixed conifer-
deciduous forest,
Kolovesi National Park,
Finland (right).
spatial location - particularly noticeable when any
single layer is combined with another. In the present
study the nnlsmatch between the GLC2000 and the
higher resolution ocean layer held at UNEP-WCMC
led to the occurrence of a considerable area of "no
data" along the coastline in many areas.
The data on protected areas used in the
analysis were derived from the World Database on
Protected Areas as it stood In 2003. Of the just over
100 000 sites in this database, boundary inform-
ation is held in a GIS for some iO 000 sites. For a
further 37 000 or so, information is available
describing the geographic coordinates of the
central point, and there is also information on the
size of the site. With this information it was possible
to create buffered points (circles of the correct size
centered on the known central pointl. Combining
these two data sources provided approximate
spatial extent and location information for over 70
percent of the sites in the database. This includes
most of the largest sites and hence it can be
assumed that it represents a minimum estimate of
the total protected area coverage assessed in this
study. lOf the remaining sites a further 15 percent
have a known area, but location is not known
(beyond the country); 12 percent have a location, but
the size of the site is unknown, and 2 percent have
no known size or location.)
The sources of the information within the
database are highly varied, and it must be assumed
that the spatial accuracy of the information contains
similar variation. Errors are likely to arise both from
inaccuracy (points are simply wrong, with errors
potentially varying from tens of meters to tens of
kilometers) and from issues of resolution (with
effectively the same results - maps prepared for
low-resolution use may show increasing levels of
spatial misplacement associated with "pushing"
them beyond their true resolution). At the present
time it IS not possible to provide an assessment of
the level of these errors within the database.
Forests
Under natural conditions, about half of the Earth's
land surface would be expected to be covered
with forest and woodland. Under human influence
this proportion has been reduced to around one
quarter. Remaining forests provide habitat for
more than half of the world's species, generate
about half of the global terrestrial annual net
primary production, and house about 50 percent of
the world's terrestrial carbon stocks. As global
loss and degradation of forests is continuing,
establishment and effective management of
protected areas will be key to ensuring the
preservation of global biodiversity and main-
tenance of forest ecosystem functions.
What and where are forests?
Despite their importance to people and the large
amount of research focused on forest ecosystems, it
has proved difficult to agree a precise definition of
"forest". While the term clearly indicates an
ecosystem in which trees are the predominant life
68
Protected areas and biodiversity
form, the problem arises because of the broad
range of systems in which trees occur For example,
tree species may dominate at high attitude, but be
barely recognizable as trees because of their
spreading prostrate forms; savannas may have a
significant presence of trees, but it is problematic to
define where trees are predominant.
Problems in defining forest make it difficult to
carry out consistent analyses at global or regional
scale of remaining forest cover or rates of loss.
FAO, which has an international mandate to assess
and monitor global forest resources, has defined
forest as area with greater than 10 percent tree
crown cover IFAO, 2001 1, but this definition includes
sparse tree cover not considered as forest by many
other organizations.
Forests and woodlands were originally
distributed throughout the temperate and tropical
latitudes of the Earth, except for areas of desert
climate or extreme high altitude or latitude, as well
as some areas of prairie and steppe. The factors
determining their distribution are largely climatic:
tree establishment and growth require a minimum
number of days in the year with adequate climatic
conditions for active growth. Substrate character-
istics are also important: trees require access to
enough soil for nutrient and water supply. Other
non-anthropogenic factors limiting the distribution
of forests include flooding, the incidence of wildfire,
and the presence of toxic minerals in the substrate.
The forms and types of forest vary greatly
throughout the world. A number of global class-
ification systems have been suggested, but as yet
none has gained universal acceptance. The
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization] system proposed by
Ellenberg and Mueller-Dombois (UNESCO, 19931
includes nearly 100 forest and woodland
"subformations " and allows for yet finer sub-
divisions, but many of the characteristics that
separate categories can only be determined in the
field. Other classifications, such as the Earth
Resources Observation and Science (EROSI Data
Centre seasonal land-cover regions, with nearly a
thousand classes, reflect more strongly the nature
of land-cover data obtained from Earth-orbiting
satellites and the processes involved in their
classification (Loveland ef ai, 2000). The vast range
of physiognomic, phenological, and other variation
among forest types that these classifications
identify within the very broad FAO definition of
forest can be aggregated loosely into five wide
categories: temperate and boreal needleleaf
forests; temperate broadleaf and mixed forests;
tropical moist forests; tropical dry forests; and
sparse trees and parklands. Each of these broad
categories has a particular distribution and
encompasses many different specific forest types
that have some characteristics in common.
Threats to forests and their biodiversity and
rates of loss
The principal pressures on forests and their
biodiversity are conversion to other land uses, prin-
cipally forms of agriculture, logging, and other
types of natural resource extraction, such as
hunting. These factors are of varying importance in
different parts of the world and in different forest
types. For example, conversion of forest to agri-
culture is the main cause of tropical moist forest
loss, but is of negligible importance in boreal
needleleaf forests. Timber extraction is an
important pressure on biodiversity in both tropical
and temperate forests. In 2000, global consumption
of industrial roundwood was more than
1 500 million m^ (FAO, 20031, and was projected to
continue to rise.
Approaches to timber extraction vary among
forest types, from clear-cutting in temperate
needleleaf forests to selective logging in most
tropical forest types. The impacts on logged eco-
systems can be severe, though practices designed
to reduce the negative effects are becoming more
widely used. There is also strong evidence that
logging can increase the probability of wildfire in
temperate forests and even in tropical moist forests
not usually subject to burning (Holdsworth and
Uhl, 1997; Cochrane eO/., 20021. Many tree species
have suffered extensive population and genetic
losses as a result of commercial exploitation.
Furthermore, logging operations create access to
forest areas that may otherwise have remained
isolated. This improved access facilitates hunting
and other activities that exert pressure on forest
biodiversity, and may ultimately lead to colonization
and conversion of the land to agricultural use.
In addition to loss of area, forest conversion and
logging lead to changes in the condition or quality of
the remaining forest. These can include fragmenta-
tion of large areas of continuous forest. Tropical
forest fragments are distinct from continuous forests
in both ecology and composition (Laurance and
Bierregaard, 19971. There are physical and biotic
gradients associated with fragment edges, and forest
49
The world's protected areas
Old-growth coastal
temperate rainforest,
Koeye River, British
Columbia, Canada.
structure undergoes radical change near edges as a
result of the impacts of wind and increased tree
mortality. Fragments are also more vulnerable to fire
(Cochrane, 20011. Some animal species are "edge
avoiders" and decline in abundance in forest
fragments, while others become more abundant.
Some non-forest and even non-native species of
plants and animals successfully invade forest
fragments but not continuous forest. In addition to
affecting canopy composition directly, removal of
large timber trees may also affect the availability of
seed for regeneration and may affect animal species
that depend on the timber species.
In many areas, wildfire is an important factor
affecting the state and dynamics of forest eco-
systems. It is particularly important in high-latitude
coniferous forest, Mediterranean ecosystems, and
in tropical dry forests. Logging activity and other
forms of forest disturbance that alter the forest
microenvironment increase the susceptibility to fire
of many forest ecosystems and thus alter both the
frequency and intensity of wildfire damage.
In countries with low forest cover, fuelwood
collection combined with grazing is the principal
cause of forest degradation IFAO, 20031. Globally,
fuelwood and charcoal consumption more than
doubled between 1961 and 1991, and was projected
to rise by another 30 percent to 2 400 million m> by
2010 (FAO, 20011.
Other factors that affect forests and their
biodiversity include acid rain and global climate
change. So far, most of the effects of acid precip-
itation, which is caused by industrial air pollutants.
have been documented in temperate needleleaf
forests and associated waterways of Europe and
North America. Data on current trends in forest
cover change reveal that the rates of deforestation
continue to be high in the developing countries of
the tropics, in both absolute and proportional
terms. In contrast, temperate countries are losing
forests at lower rates, or indeed showing a net
increase in their forest area, principally due to active
programs of plantation establishment, but also
because of some natural afforestation in abandoned
agricultural lands or areas logged during the 19th
and early 20th centuries. FAO (2001) estimated the
annual global loss of natural forest cover during the
1990s at 160 000 km^ , leading to a total loss over
the decade of just over 4 percent of global natural
forest cover The bulk of this loss Ic. IBOOOOkm^l
was in the tropics, with 9 000 km' of natural forest
lost outside the tropics. FAO suggests, therefore,
that the rate of loss of natural forest has remained
steady or declined slightly in comparison with the
previous decade.
Forest protection status
Combining the most recent version of the World
Database on Protected Areas with an approximate
map of global forest cover derived from the Global
Landcover database, it can be estimated that in
the order of 1 1 to 1 2 percent of the worlds current
forest area falls within protected areas in lUCN
Categories l-VI with an estimated additional 4 to 5
percent included in protected areas that have not
been assigned to any one of the lUCN categories.
Based on the combined WDPA/GLC2000
analysis (using 2003 WDPA data), tropical moist
forests are the forests that have the highest
proportion of remaining cover protected, with
around 13 percent of their extent recorded as
included in protected areas belonging to lUCN
Management Categories l-VI (Table 2.11. In addition,
a further 10 percent is recorded by the analysis as
occurring in protected areas for which no lUCN
management category has been assigned. Globally,
tropical dry forests are the least protected with only
around 7 percent of their area apparently included
in Categories l-VI and another A percent in areas
with no category assigned. Temperate broadleaf
and mixed forests, and temperate and boreal
needleleaf forests, are intermediate, with around
11 to 12 percent protected in areas with Categories
l-VI and a further 1 or 2 percent in areas with no
category assigned.
50
Protected areas and biodiversity
Temperate and boreal needleleaf forests
Temperate and boreal needleleaf forests are
estimated to cover around 11 million km^ with a
further 1 .6 million km^ or so of sparse forest. They
mostly occupy the higher latitude regions of the
northern hemisphere, as well as high-altitude
zones and some warm temperate areas, especially
on nutrient-poor or otherwise unfavorable soils.
These forests are composed entirely, or nearly so,
of coniferous species IPinophyta). In the northern
hemisphere, pines Pinus, spruces Picea, larches
Larix, silver firs Abies, Douglas firs Pseudotsuga,
and hemlocks Tsuga dominate the canopy, but
other taxa are also important. In the southern
hemisphere coniferous trees, including members of
the Araucanaceae, Cupressaceae, and Podocar-
paceae, often occur in mixtures with broadleaf
species in systems that are classed as broadleaf
and mixed forests.
Although tree species richness is low in most
temperate and boreal needleleaf forests, old
growth conifer stands, which may be many
centuries old, represent an irreplaceable gene
pool and an important habitat for many other
organisms. Botanical species richness in these
forests is commonly increased by a relatively high
diversity of mosses and lichens, which grow both
on the ground and on tree trunks and branches.
For example, there are at least 100 species of
moss growing in the coniferous forests between
1 300 and 2 000 m altitude on Baekdu Mountain,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea iHoang
Ho-dzung, 19871. Vertebrate richness is generally
lower in boreal needleleaf forests than in broadleaf
temperate and tropical forests, and many species
are wide-ranging generalists, often with a
Holarctic distribution, for example, wolf Cams
lupus, brown bear Ursus arctos.
Some of the conifer species within these
forests, notably the giant redwood Sequoiaden-
dron giganteum, are considered vulnerable to
extinction (Farjon and Page, 19991, and a number
of animals of conservation concern are dependent
on temperate needleleaf forests. For example, the
northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina
requires large expanses of old-growth coniferous
forest in the northwest USA to provide nesting
habitat and adequate food resources. Kirtlands
warbler Dendroica kirtlandii needs young re-
growing jack pine as a nesting habitat, and fire
suppression programs have reduced the available
habitat for this species to critical levels. While
TABLE 2.2: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE AND BOREAL NEEDLELEAF
FORESTS
Ecosystem Protected
area area %
Region Ikm^) (km^) protected
Australia/New Zealand 8 000 400 5
East Asia
ibl 000
64 000
14
Europe
824 000
99 000
12
North Africa and
Middle East
42 000
1 500
3
North America
3 660 000
835 000
23
North Eurasia
5 756 000
539 000
9
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^
there is relatively little information available on
the conservation status of invertebrates, many
common old-growth species are known to become
much rarer in modern managed forests, often
through the loss of essential microhabitats
IVaisanen et ai, 19931.
Temperate needleleaf forests have lost about
30 percent of their potential area lUNEP-WCMC,
2002). The principal factors affecting them are
clear-felling and fire. They are also susceptible to
the impacts of acid rain and are believed likely to be
particularly vulnerable to global climate change
through both range restrictions and increasing fire
frequency IIPCC, 20011.
Important protected areas for needleleaf
forests include the Virgin Komi Forest complex, a
World Heritage site in the northern Urals in Russia,
which covers nearly 3 million hectares in total;
Beech forest, Rock
Cities of the Bohemian
Paradise Protected
Landscape, Czech
Republic.
51
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.3: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE BROADLEAF AND MIXED
FORESTS
Ecosystem Protected
area area %
Region (km^l (km^j protected
Australia/New Zealand 616 000 15^000 25
Caribbean
37 000
11 000
29
Central America
55 000
8 000
U
East Asia
1 836 000
192 000
10
Eastern and Southern Africa
95 000
7 000
7
Europe
985 000
112 000
11
North Africa and Middle East
61 000
2 000
4
North America
3 302 000
469 000
14
North Eurasia
2 926 000
239 000
8
South America
275 000
45 000
16
South Asia
129 000
13 000
10
Southeast Asia
5 000
4 000
82
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^
Redwood National Park and World Heritage Site in
California, USA, which includes important old-
growth stands of redwood Sequoia sempervirens,
Including the world's tallest known living tree; and
Wood Buffalo National Park and World Heritage Site
In Canada, which also includes important wetland
areas. Including the only breeding site of the
endangered whooping crane Grus americana.
Temperate broadteaf and mixed forests
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests now cover
about 10 million km^ of the Earth's surface. They
Include such forest types as the mixed deciduous
forests of the USA and their counterparts in China
and Japan, including freshwater swamps and
bottom-land forests throughout the temperate
zone, the broadleaf evergreen rainforests of Chile,
Japan, New Zealand, and Tasmania, and the
sclerophyllous forests of Australia, California, USA,
and the Mediterranean. Many of these forests have
a significant presence of needleleaf and other con-
iferous species. Depending on the precise forest
type, these forests tend to be structurally more
complex than pure coniferous forests, having more
layers In the canopy
As might be expected from their structural
diversity, temperate broadleaf and mixed forests
are generally richer in species than coniferous
forests. Southern mixed hardwood forests in the
USA are commonly composed of as many as 20
canopy and subcanopy tree species and may
include as many as 30 overstory species (Barnes,
1991). In comparison, European forests tend to be
less species rich, while the deciduous forests of
East Asia may be the richest of all (Ching, 1991;
Schaefer, 1991). While many species in northern
broadleaf forests are widespread In distribution,
the more isolated temperate forests of southern
South America, Australia, and New Zealand
contain a significant number of restricted-range
and endemic species.
About 60 percent of the potential cover of
temperate broadleaf and mixed forests has
disappeared, much of It having been converted to
agriculture at various times during the Holocene. In
parts of Europe and North America, however, the
area of forest of this kind has stabilized or even
increased in the past few decades.
A number of species from temperate
broadleaf and mixed forests are of conservation
concern. Japan alone has 43 threatened endemic
tree species, which are mostly characteristic of Its
temperate broadleaf forests lOhba, 1996), while
most of the 140 globally threatened conifer taxa
(Hilton-Taylor, 20001 occur in mixed forests,
particularly those in the southern hemisphere.
Threatened animal species of these forests Include
several New Zealand forest birds, such as the
kakapo [Strigops fiabroptilus] and some kiwi
species lApteryx spp.l; Leadbeater's possum
[Gymnobetideus leadbeaten], an arboreal mars-
upial from southeastern Australia; the AmamI
rabbit Pentalagus furnessi of Amami Island
(Japanl; and several deer, including the South
American southern huemul Hippocamelus bisulcus
and southern pudu Pudu puda. Loss of habitat,
hunting, and introduced predators are major
threats to these and other animals of temperate
broadleaf and mixed forests.
Notable protected areas include the complex
of national parks and other areas that make up the
1.4 million hectare Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area, with Important stands of Eucalyptus-
dominated temperate rainforest, the combined
Belovezhskaya Puscha (Belarus) and Bialowleza
Forest (Poland! National Parks, Biosphere Reserve
and World Heritage Site, home of the European
bison Bison bonasus, and Los Glaclares National
Park and World Heritage Site In Argentina, which
contains extensive areas of southern beech
Nothofagus harboring a vestigial population of
southern huemul.
52
Protected areas and biodiversity
Tropical moist forests
Tropical moist forests cover perhaps 12 miUion km;
of the humid tropics and include many different
forest types. The best known and most extensive are
the lowland evergreen broadleaf rainforests
including, for example, the seasonally inundated
varzea and igapo forests and the terra firme forests
of the Amazon Basin, the high forests of the Congo
Basin, and the peat forests and moist dipterocarp
forests of Southeast Asia. Together these make up
more than half of the total remaining area of
tropical moist forest, the great majority in two
areas: the Amazon Basin in South America and the
Congo Basin in Africa. Most mountain forests in the
tropics are moist forests. These include cloud forest
- the middle- to high-altitude forests that derive a
significant part of their water supply from the
clouds, and support a rich abundance of epiphytes.
Mangrove forests and other swamp forests also fall
within this broad category.
Many tropical moist forests have canopies ^lO
to 50 m tall, and some have emergent trees that
rise above the main canopy to heights of 60 m or
more. Such large-stature forests are character-
istic of lowland forests and some lower montane
forests on relatively nutrient-rich soils. Another
characteristic of these forests is a relatively high
frequency of woody lianas and, especially in the
neotropics, palms (Gentry, 1988al. Moist tropical
forests are also known tor a high abundance and
diversity of vascular epiphytes, which take
advantage of the higher light availability found in
the canopy and can survive because of abundant
rainfall and high atmospheric moisture. On more
nutrient-poor soils and at higher altitudes, forest
stature decreases substantially; communities in
upper montane environments (elfin forests! may
be no more than a few meters tall.
In numerical terms, global terrestrial species
diversity is concentrated in tropical rainforests.
Generally speaking, the wet tropical forests of
Africa have a lower tree species richness than those
of Asia and America (Table 2.41, but there is great
local variation. Within the Amazon Basin, for
example, tree species richness ranges from 87
species per hectare in the east (Pires, 1957] to 285
species in central Amazonia (de Oliveira and Mori,
19991 and nearly 300 species in the west (Gentry,
1988bj. The high diversity of epiphytes and lianas in
lowland evergreen rainforests adds to the total
botanical richness and parallels the pattern for
trees, being much higher in neotropical forests than
TABLE 2M:
TREE SPECIES RICHNESS IN
TROPICAL MOIST FORESTS |
latter Phillips
etal.
19941
No. of tree species
l>10 cm diameter
at breast height)
Region
per hectare
Africa
56-92
Americas
56-285
Southeast Asia
108-240
1
in other regions (Benzing, 1989). Not all tropical
moist forests are so rich in species. Mangrove eco-
systems have low tree species diversity and
generally low animal diversity despite their some-
times high productivity. Extremely nutrient-poor
soils, such as white sands, lead to the development
of low-diversity forests including bana and campina
(Prance, 1989). As climate becomes more seasonal,
tree species richness tends to decline (see dry
forests, below); increasing altitude also tends to
reduce species richness although isolated high-
altitude areas tend to have a high proportion of
endemic species (Jenkins, 19921.
Tropical moist forests are equally important
for animal diversity. In Africa, the Guineo-
Congolean forest block contains more than
80 percent of African primate species, and nearly
70 percent of African passerine birds and butterflies
TABLE 2.5: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL MOIST FOREST
Region
Australia/New Zealand
Ecosystem
area
Ikm2)
160 000
Protected
area
(km2l
29 000
%
protected
Caribbean
12 000
3 000
25
Central America
246 000
83 000
34
East Asia
72 000
13 000
18
Eastern and Southern Africa
193 000
42 000
22
North America
204 000
15 000
7
Pacific
372 000
35 000
9
South America
6 846 000
1 924 000
28
South Asia
172 000
25 000
U
Southeast Asia
1 577 000
319 000
20
Western and Gen
tral Africa
2 250 000
310 304
14
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^.
53
The world's protected areas
Lowland tropical forest,
Tetepare Island
community-conserved
area, Solomon Islands.
(Jenkins, 19921. About half of ttie 1 100 South
American reptile species are found in moist forests,
with around 300 of these endemic to the habitat
IHarcourt and Sayer, 1996).
Tropical moist forest cover is now about
^5 percent of its potential extent (UNEP-WCMC,
20021. Conversion to agriculture is the major cause
of tropical moist forest loss. This is due both to
large-scale agricultural expansion and to expanding
rural populations using shifting cultivation at an
intensity that does not permit adequate fallow
periods. Government resettlement programs that
have moved large numbers of poor farmers have
increased the rate of land colonization and clear-
ance in parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America.
In some areas, land has been converted to ranching
principally as a means of gaining title in order to
permit speculation in land values. Thus, population
growth, poverty, and inequitable land tenure are
among the causes underlying deforestation by
conversion to agriculture.
In most regions, tropical forests at low altitude
on fertile soils are those subject to major pressure
as they are the prime targets for conversion to agri-
cultural land. In many areas (e.g. Java and Sumatra
in Indonesia, eastern Madagascar, West Africa, and
southeastern Brazil! they have already been almost
entirely cleared, leaving remnants in increasingly
isolated protected areas. There are exceptions,
however: in New Guinea the highest human
population densities occur, and most forest
conversion has taken place, at higher altitudes, with
many lowland areas relatively undisturbed until
recently, although these too are now under
increasing pressure.
Because of the high rates of diversity in
tropical moist forests and, often, high rates of local
endemism, there are protected areas of global
importance for biodiversity in every biogeographic
region in which such forests occur However,
precisely because of this high diversity, and because
of the difficulties of sampling and surveying species
in tropical moist forests, the biota of such areas is
almost invariably incompletely known. It is probably
safe to say that there is, for example, no remotely
comprehensive list of invertebrate species for any
tropical moist forest protected area. For some areas
that have been the focus of study and interest for
many years there may be reasonably good
inventories of some animal groups - usually birds,
primates, and crodocilians: sometimes carnivores,
ungulates, and chelonians; and occasionally butter-
flies (though rarely all Lepidopteral, amphibians,
and lizards.
The siiuation is essentially similar for plants.
For a tiny number of small, well-studied protected
areas (usually associated with research stations,
such as Barro Colorado Nature Monument,
Panama) there are complete or nearly complete
floristic inventories; for some other areas there may
be reasonably good lists of tree species, often based
on forest inventory work; here and elsewhere part-
icular groups (e.g. cycads, palms, ferns, orchids)
may be well known if they have been the focus of
particular interest.
Despite this incomplete knowledge, it is
possible to identify in each region protected areas
that are certainly of particular importance for biod-
iversity, at least when measured in terms of species
diversity. Some have been declared World Heritage
sites, although this has not necessarily guaranteed
effective protection, and in 2007 a significant num-
ber of these areas were on the World Heritage In
Danger List, including all the sites in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On paper at least, a remarkably high pro-
portion - nearly one quarter - of remaining tropical
moist forest cover is included in some kind of
protected area. However, caution must be exercised
when interpreting this figure, and in particular in
concluding that the overall conservation status of
tropical moist forests is satisfactory, or at least
56
Protected areas and biodiversity
better ttian that for other forest types. In the first
instance, because las with the statistics presented
for other biomesl this figure is a proportion of exis-
ting forest cover protected, it does not indicate what
percentage of original or potential forest is covered
- indeed, if, as is evidently the case, forest continues
to be cleared outside protected areas at a faster rate
than forest inside protected areas, then the
percentage of forest protected will continue to
increase, even if the actual area protected remains
static or even decreases (through deforestation
within protected areas). If all forest outside pro-
tected areas were cleared, the proportion protected
would rise to 100 percent with no additional forest
having been protected.
Second, nearly half of protected forest is in
areas for which no lUCN management category
has been assigned. Much of this undoubtedly
comprises forest reserves of various kinds - areas
that are slated for timber production and other
extractive uses. These do not have biodiversity con-
servation as their major aim, although they may still
be important for many components of biodiversity.
Third, a global-level analysis of this kind does
not differentiate between different categories of
tropical moist forest. As noted above, lowland
tropical moist forests are generally under much
higher pressure than montane forests and, con-
versely, a much higher proportion of the latter is
likely to be included in protected areas. In Southeast
Asia, for example, montane areas overall are far
more highly protected than non-montane areas
Iroughly 19 percent protected compared with 8
percent for non-montanel.
Protected areas that are important for tropical
moist forests include: Manu National Park, a
biosphere reserve and World Heritage site in
Peru, which covers some 1.8 million hectares in
total, and is home to over 800 species of bird as well
as globally threatened mammals such as the
endangered giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis; the
1.3 million hectare Okapi Faunal Reserve and World
Heritage Site in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, which covers around one fifth of the Ituri
Forest in the Congo River basin, and has important
populations of okapi Okapia johnstoni and
chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, and was included in
1998 on the World Heritage In Danger List; and
Ujong Kulon National Park and World Heritage Site
in Indonesia, which is believed to be the last
viable natural refuge of the critically endangered
Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus.
Tropical dry forests
Tropical dry forests are those forests in the tropics
that are subject to prolonged, usually seasonal
drought. Such seasonal climates characterize
much of the land between 10° and 30° latitude in all
three major tropical regions, but only around
3 million km2 of tropical dry forests remain.
Throughout the tropics they have been converted for
agriculture and pasture land. The principal zones of
tropical dry forest in the Neotropics are along the
Pacific coast of Central America and northern
Colombia and Venezuela, in southeastern Bolivia,
Paraguay, and northern Argentina, and in the
northeast of Brazil. In Africa, the denser categories
of miombo woodland are tropical dry forest as is
some of the transitional forest at the edge of the
Sahel. Large expanses of tropical dry forest were
once characteristic of India and the seasonally dry
areas of Southeast Asia, including northern
Thailand and Cambodia. Dry forests occur in ram-
shadow areas throughout the world, including some
intermountain valleys, for example in the Andes,
and the leeward sides of many tropical islands.
Though of lower species richness than tropical
moist forests, tropical dry forests still have
appreciably more tree species than most temperate
forests. The richest neotropical dry forests are not
the wettest ones, but those in western Mexico and in
the Chaco of southeast Bolivia. These forests have
around 90 woody species per 0.1 ha sample (Gentry,
19951 and have high rates of plant species
endemism relative to wet forests in the tropics.
Vertebrate species diversity is lower in dry forests
than in moist forests, but many dry forests have high
TABLE 2.6: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Region
Central America
Ecosystem
area
(km^l
3 000
Protected
area
(kmZ)
700
%
protected
21
East Asia
8 000
3 000
34
Eastern and Southern
Africa
620 000
155 000
25
North America
275 000
18 000
6
South America
875 000
72 000
8
South Asia
500 000
a 000
9
Southeast Asia
188 000
22 000
12
Western and Central Africa
632 000
22 000
3
Analysis based on GLC2a00 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest ttiousand km-
55
The world's protected areas
Dry forest, Bemahara
National Park,
Madagascar.
rates of endemism among mammals, especially
among groups such as insectlvores and rodents
ICeballos, 19951. Remaining areas of dry forest are
often important refuges for once widespread
species. The Gir Forest of Gujarat [India! contains
the only population of Asiatic lion Panthera teo
persica, which was once found throughout much of
southern Asia and the Middle East; the dry forests of
western Madagascar are inhabited by around ^0
percent of the island's endemic lemurs. Invert-
ebrate species richness In tropical dry forests tends
to be poorly known, but in groups such as Lepld-
optera (butterflies and mothsl and Hymenoptera
lants, bees, and waspsi, richness may be com-
parable to adjacent wet forest iJanzen, 19881.
Their seasonal climates and the resulting
relatively slow rates of tree growth make tropical
dry forests especially susceptible to degradation by
TABLE 2.7: PROTECTION OF BOREAL AND SUB-BOREAL
OPEN FORESTS
Ecosystenn
Protected
area
area
%
Region
Ikm2)
Ikm2)
protected
East Asia
29 000
3 000
10
Europe
5 000
1 000
20
North America
1 164 000
174 000
15
North Eurasia
377 000
40 000
11
Analysis based on GLC2000
and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^.
overgrazing and overcollection of fuelwood. Of the
major types of closed forest, tropical dry forest is
believed overall to have lost the greatest proportion
of Its potential area, nearly 70 percent (UNEP-
WCMC, 2002). It is also the major forest type with
the lowest remaining proportion included in
protected areas.
Because of their high degree of endemism and
because degradation and conversion of tropical dry
forests has progressed further than in wet forests,
their biota are often highly threatened. Threatened
dry forest species Include Spix's macaw Cyanopsitta
spixii (now almost certainly extinct in the wild], the
Chacoan peccary Catagonus wagneri, Verreaux's
sifaka Propithecus verreauxi, and the Madagascar
flat-tailed tortoise Pyxis planicauda, all of which are
at risk from habitat destruction and hunting.
Notable protected areas with dry tropical
forest include Guanacaste Conservation Area and
World Heritage Site in Costa Rica, Ankarafantsika
National Park in western Madagascar, with popul-
ations of at least seven lemur species, and the GIr
Forest In India.
Open forests
Open forests with tree canopies of around 10-30
percent crown cover occur principally In areas
of transition from forested to non-forested
landscapes. The two major zones In which these
ecosystems occur are the boreal region and the
seasonally dry tropics.
At high latitudes, north of the main zone of
boreal forest or taiga, growing conditions are not
adequate to maintain a continuous closed forest
cover, so tree cover is both sparse and discont-
inuous. This vegetation is variously called open
taiga, open lichen woodland, and forest tundra
(Tukhanen, 19991. It is species poor, has high bryo-
phyte cover, and is frequently affected by fire. It is
important for the livelihoods of a number of groups
of Indigenous people, including the SaamI and some
groups of Inuit. Current analysis Indicates around
1.5 million km' of such forest, of which something
over 200 000 km^ Is included In protected areas.
In the seasonally dry tropics, decreasing soil
fertility and Increasing fire frequency are related
to the transition from closed dry forest through
open woodland to savanna. The open woodland eco-
systems Include the more open Brachystegia and
Isobertinia miombo woodlands of dry tropical Africa
and parts of both the caatinga and cerrado vege-
tations of Brazil (Menaut et ai, 19951. There is est-
56
Protected areas and biodiversity
imated to be just over 2 million km- of this open tree
cover, most of it In Eastern and Southern Africa.
Based on WDPA 2003 data, we can estimate
that nearly 400 000 km; of tropical open forests are
included in protected areas. Important areas
include; Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National
Parks in Brazil, w/hich together constitute a single
World Heritage site with significant populations of
threatened cerrado species such as the giant arma-
dillo Priodontes maximus, maned wolf Chrysocyon
brachiurus, and giant anteater Myrmecophaga
tridactyla. the Selous Game Reserve and World
Heritage Site in Tanzania, the largest game reserve
in Africa with enormous expanses of miombo
woodland; and Kaziranga National Park and World
Heritage Site in Assam, India, which is largely a
mosaic of seasonally flooded grassland and open
forest, and contains the world's largest population
of Indian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis as well
as many other threatened species, including the
endangered hispid hare Caprolagus hispidus.
Non-forest habitats
Around 75 percent of the world's land surface is
not forested, either because it has been converted
by humans for other purposes, or because
conditions are not suitable for forest growth,
usually because the climate is too arid or too cold,
or both. Of the cold climate areas, some
15 million km^ are currently permanent snow and
ice cover (although the proportion may decrease
as global climates warm). Some 60 million km^ of
the remainder, or just under half of the land
surface, consists of a range of dryland biomes.
These comprise natural or semi-natural, but in
places often heavily disturbed and degraded,
vegetation types. These biomes are present in
approximately half the countries in the world and
include almost 70 percent of Africa, 35 percent of
Asia, 80 percent of Australia, 20 percent of the
Americas, and 8 percent of Europe.
These systems have a wide spectrum of
moisture availability. They are often broken down
into hyperarid, arid, semi-arid, or dry subhumid
regimes, with numerous different habitats recog-
nized within them. The distinction between many of
them and more open forest habitats is arbitrary.
Using a modified version of the GLC2000 analysis
we recognize the following; shrublands, savannas,
and tropical grasslands (including savanna/tropical
shrubland mosaic, but excluding savanna/tree cover
mosaic, which is included under open forests],
TABLE 2.8: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL OPEN FORESTS
Region
Australia/New Zealand
Ecosystem
area
Ikm^l
323 000
Protected
area
Ikm2)
29 000
%
protected
9
East Asia
70 000
5 000
7
Eastern and Southern
Africa
1313 000
31 A 000
24
Pacific
3/iOOO
2 000
5
South America
247 000
9 000
3
South Asia
28 000
2 000
6
Southeast Asia
220 000
26 000
12
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest tfiousand km^.
temperate grasslands, warm deserts and semi-
deserts, cold deserts and semi-deserts, and tundra.
Protected areas in non-forested habitats
Analysis using the GLC2000 and the 2003 WDPA
indicated that around 10 percent of the area of non-
forested natural or semi-natural habitat was
included in protected areas with lUCN Management
Categories I to VI. This is slightly less than the
12 percent of forested habitats. Moreover, a much
smaller additional area - some 1.2 million km^ or
two percent of the total area - is included in pro-
tected areas for which no management category
has been assigned, giving an overall coverage of
12 percent for non-forested habitats as opposed to
around 16 to 17 percent for forested habitats.
Blue wildebeest
1 Connochaetes taurinus]
grazing on tropical
grassland, Ngorongoro,
Tanzania.
57
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.9: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL SAVANNAS
Ecosystem Protected
area area
Region Ikm^l (km^l
Australia/New Zealand 2 006 000 138 000
%
protected
7
Caribbean
27 000
1 700
6
Central America
11000
800
7
East Asia
194 000
21 000
11
Eastern and Souttiern Africa
3 743 000
667 000
18
North Africa and Middle East
109 000
3 000
2
North America
961 000
1 1 1 000
12
Pacific
10 000
700
8
South America
1 984 000
196 000
10
South Asia
581 000
66 000
11
Southeast Asia
205 000
17 000
8
Western and Central Africa
3 177 000
430 000
14
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^
Comparing different habitat types, the present
data indicate that cold deserts and semi-deserts
are the least well protected, with only around 8
percent of the total included in protected areas.
Preliminary analysis of the size of protected areas
over 100 km^ indicates considerable variation.
Current data show that the average size of such
protected areas globally in all bionnes is about
570 km2. The average size for temperate grassland
protected areas is much less, only around 180 km-.
In striking contrast, protected areas in the tropical
grasslands and savannas biome, while fewer in
number, are significantly larger with an average
TABLE 2.10: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS
Region
Australia/New Zealand
Ecosystem
area
(km2)
619 000
Protected
area
(km2|
100 000
%
protected
16
East Asia
2 477 000
742 000
30
Eastern and Southern
Africa
460 000
19 000
4
Europe
396 000
49 000
12
North Africa and Middle East
679 000
15 000
2
North America
1 300 000
120 000
9
North Eurasia
1 277 000
76 000
6
South America
299 000
44 000
15
South Asia
43 000
9 000
21
Analysis based on 6LC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^.
size of more than 3 000 km^. Protected areas for
deserts also tend be much larger than the norm,
with the average size of protected areas in both
warm and cold deserts being just under 2 000 km'.
Grasslands and savannas
Grasslands are dominated by grasses and shrub
vegetation, and are maintained by fire, low rainfall,
freezing temperatures, and grazing by herbivores,
acting in various combinations. They currently con-
stitute perhaps 15 percent of the worlds terrestrial
cover and are one of the most extensive of all the
terrestrial biomes. Natural temperate grasslands
generally occur in the interior of the large contin-
ental land masses, and in the rainshadow of the
world's main mountain ranges where the contin-
ental climate brings harsh winter conditions along
with hot, dry summers. Examples include North
America's prairies lor Great Plains], the pampas of
Argentina and southern Uruguay, the vast steppe
of eastern Europe and Asia, the grasslands of
southeastern Australia, the tussock grasslands of
New Zealand, and the veld in South Africa.
Temperate grasslands are currently
estimated to cover around 7.5 million km', around
half of this 13.75 million km'l in East Asia and
North Eurasia, and some 1.3 million km' in North
America. Tropical savannas and grasslands cover
around twice the area of temperate grasslands,
although some 2 million km' are classified as
savanna/tree cover mosaic and treated here under
open forests. The best known tropical grasslands
are the African savannas; the llanos and cerrados
of Brazil and northern Uruguay; the grasslands of
inner India, home to the Asian tiger; and the
hummock grasslands or spinifex of central and
northern Australia.
Natural grasslands can be very rich in plant
species. A square meter of meadow steppe in
Russia may have AO-50 species. The tall grass
prairie in North America has been known to contain
up to 300 species in 3 hectares. However, over large
areas, grasslands tend to be homogeneous;
therefore diversity does not rise steeply with
increasing area.
Most natural grasslands support or originally
supported large and diverse populations of native
grazing mammals. Historically, the temperate
grasslands of North America's interior were home
to tens of millions of bison Bison bison, pronghorn
antelope Antilocapra americana, mule deer Odo-
coileus hemionus, and elk Cervus elaphus. The
58
Protected areas and biodiversity
Serengeti continues to sustain an impressive
assemblage of ungulates and predators, with one
and a half million blue wildebeest Connochaetes
taurinus still making their extraordinary annual
migration across the plains of Tanzania and Kenya.
The saiga antelope Saiga tatarica, once numbering
in the millions, were a common sight on the steppes
of eastern Europe and western Asia. Hundreds of
thousands of Mongolian gazelle Procapra gutturosa
still roam the steppes of eastern Mongolia. Though
lesser known, their annual migration is considered
one of the last great wildlife spectacles on earth.
A high proportion of plant biomass in
grasslands, in the form of roots and rhizomes. Is
located underground; there Is a high turnover of
those parts of the plant above ground. One Imp-
ortant consequence of this Is that grassland soils,
especially In more humid environments, are often
rich in organic matter and are therefore particularly
prone to conversion to cropland. Where not con-
verted, grasslands are almost invariably used, often
heavily, for domestic livestock grazing. Little temp-
erate grassland, in particular. Is now In anything
like its natural or undisturbed state.
The impact of livestock grazing and other
human activities on grassland biodiversity is
variable. Livestock have an impact on grassland
ecosystems through trampling, removal of plant
biomass, alteration of plant species composition
through selective grazing, competition with native
species, and spread of pathogens. In some areas
where the native vegetation Is well adapted, the
impact on plant diversity may be relatively small:
elsewhere, where the native vegetation has not
evolved In the presence of hoofed herbivores, the
Impact has been great. Much anthropogenic grass-
land used for grazing consists of short-term mono-
specific sown pasture, with low diversity. However,
other areas may support specles-rlch semi-natural
grassland created over centuries by pastorallsts In
conjunction with livestock grazing.
As well as suffering Impacts from habitat con-
version and competition with livestock, large animal
species In grasslands and savannas have been int-
ensively hunted almost everywhere for their
products (e.g. skins or meat), for sport, and as com-
petitors with other predators of livestock.
Important grassland protected areas include
the Serengeti National Park and World Heritage
Site in Tanzania; the Eastern Mongolian Steppe
Strictly Protected Area, which covers some 570 000
hectares and provides important habitat for
TABLE 2.1 1 : PROTECTION OF WARM DESERTS AND SEMI-DESERTS
Region
Australia/New Zealand
Ecosystenn
area
(km2)
2 862 000
Protected
area
%
(km2)
protected
267 333
East Asia
516 000
223 036
43
Eastern and So
jthern Africa
2 681 000
208 559
8
Europe
12 000
2 299
19
North Africa an
i Middle East
10 265 000
1 Ul 500
11
North America
236 000
41 696
18
North Eurasia
109 000
4 028
4
Pacific
9 000
1 267
14
South America
1 683 000
139 188
8
South Asia
389 000
20 225
5
Southeast Asia
58 000
4 603
8
Western and Central Africa
3 as 000
188 231
5
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^
migratory Mongolian gazelles; and the Tallgrass
Prairie National Preserve, Kansas, USA, which
covers only 4 400 hectares but protects one of the
few unplowed remnants of North American
tallgrass prairie left anywhere.
Deserts and semi-deserts
The world's hot, subtropical deserts and semi-
deserts are distributed along the high pressure
zone between 15° and 30° North and South
latitudes. In the north along the Tropic of Cancer
are the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, the Great
Indian or Thar Desert, the Sonoran, Chlhuahuan,
and Mojave Deserts. South, along the Tropic of
Capricorn, lie the Kalahari Desert In southern Africa
and the Interior deserts of Australia: the Great
TABLE 2.12: PROTECTION OF COLD DESERTS AND SEMI-DESERTS
Ecosystem Protected
area area %
Region (km^) (km^) protected
Australia/New Zealand 9 000 6 000 67
East Asia
2 850 000
306 000
11
Europe
91000
26 000
29
North America
339 000
89 000
26
North Eurasia
3 643 000
176 000
5
South America
353 000
3 000
1
Analysis based on GLC2000 and V\/DPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km-'
59
The world's protected areas
Tundra Lacks trees but
contains woody species
in dwarf or prostrate
forms. Purinsl<i Park,
Western Taimyr
Peninsula, Russian
Federation.
Victoria, Gibson, Great Sandy, and the Simpson.
Also found in this subtropical belt is a remarkable
form of desert, the hyperarid coastal desert, which
forms on the western margins of Africa and South
America: the Namib Desert in Namibia and the
Atacama Desert in Chile. Overall, warm deserts and
semi-deserts cover more than 20 million km^
80 percent of this in Africa and the Middle East, and
around half comprises the Sahara Desert and
surrounding arid lands.
At higher latitudes, chiefly between 35° and
50° North and South of the equator, and in some
high-altitude areas, are the cold deserts, which may
be warm or hot in summer, but become frigidly cold
in winter These cover in total around 7 million km',
or roughly one third of the area of warm deserts and
semi-deserts. The largest of these cold deserts are
located in Asia, and include the Taklamakan,
Turkestan, Iranian Plateau, and the Gobi. In western
North America, the Colorado Plateau and Great
Basin Deserts lie in the rainshadow of the coastal
mountain ranges. In South America, the Monte and
Patagonian Deserts are formed in response to the
moisture barrier of the Andes.
Biodiversity, assessed in terms of species
numbers, tends to be moderate in semi-desert
regions and to decline to low or very low levels as
aridity increases. In contrast to this general rule,
diversity in some groups, such as scorpions and
other predatory arthropod invertebrates, tenebri-
onid beetles, ants, termites, snakes, and lizards,
and annual plants, tends at first to increase as arid-
ity increases. Desert animals are often wide ranging
but occur at low population densities because of the
low primary productivity of these areas.
The low productivity and inhospitable climate
of true deserts means that, like tundra, they are
less affected by conversion to alternative land uses
than more productive ecosystems. Semi-desert
areas are, however, susceptible to factors such as
persistent overgrazing and may be slow to recover
from adverse impacts. Many large vertebrates in
and lands are threatened with extinction through
hunting; the openness of these areas means that
animals such as antelopes and other ungulates
are more conspicuous than forest species and thus
more vulnerable. The nomadic peoples that often
inhabit such areas usually have strong hunting
traditions; when combined with modern weapons
and all-terrain vehicles their impact can be catas-
trophic, as evidenced by the extinction or near
extinction of species such as the scimitar-horned
oryx Oryx dammah, addax Addax nasomaculatus,
and dama gazelle Gazella dama in North Africa,
the Arabian oryx Oryx pseudoryx in the Arabian
Peninsula, and Przewalski's gazelle Procapra
przewalski m the sub-desert steppes of China.
Notable desert and sub-desert protected
areas include the Ouadi Rime-Ouadi Achim Faunal
Reserve in Chad, one of the largest protected areas
in the world, and one which may still contain
populations of the critically endangered addax and
endangered dama gazelle, and the Great Gobi
Strictly Protected Area in Mongolia, This has been
designated as one of the world's largest biosphere
reserves, and includes important populations of
Argali sheep Ovis ammon, Saiga antelope Saiga
tatarica and wild Bactrian camel Camelus
bactnanus. A small human population lives
traditional nomadic lifestyles within the boundaries.
Tundra
Tundra is the vegetation found at high latitudes
beyond the low-temperature limits of forest growth;
the same term is sometimes used for outwardly
similar vegetation at high elevation at lower
altitude. In both areas it grades into cold-desert
formations as average annual temperature and
rainfall decrease. GLC2000/UNEP-WCMC's analysis
indicates some A.? million km^ of tundra worldwide.
Apart from a small amount in South America,
tundra is essentially confined to the northern
hemisphere, most laround 3.2 million km<) in North
America and virtually all the remainder in North
Eurasia and northern Europe.
60
Protected areas and biodiversity
Tundra lacks trees but contains woody species
|in the northern hemisphere chiefly birches Betula.
willows Salix, and alders 4/nusl growing in dwarf or
prostrate fornns, especially in locations with less
extreme climates. As latitude or altitude increases,
grasses, sedges, bryophytes, and lichens increase
in importance while shrubs decrease. Many plants
have tussock or cushion growth forms. Plants
typically cover 80-100 percent of the ground,
although the proportion decreases along the
climatic gradient to desert conditions.
Compared with forest ecosystems, tundra is
relatively species poor. A few groups, however,
most notably shorebirds, can exploit the high
biomass of invertebrates found in tundra soils
during the brief summer months and can be both
diverse and abundant at that time of year. In the
wading bird family Scolopacidae (the sandpipers
and their allies], 55 of the 87 species occur in the
Arctic, and all 2it species of sandpiper are present,
17 breeding exclusively in the region. There are
relatively few globally threatened species that
are completely dependent on tundra. An exception
is the once abundant Eskimo curlew Numenius
borealis, which nests - or perhaps nested -
exclusively in this habitat. There have been no
confirmed sightings of the bird since the 1980s, so
it may well now be extinct. Two other globally
threatened birds, Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri
and the spectacled eider Sornateria fischeri,
remain in the Arctic throughout the year and breed
largely in tundra ecosystems.
Tundra ecosystems have a high biomass
underground, and high soil carbon content. Thus,
although such systems account for only around
2 percent of global net annual primary production,
they make an important contribution to global
carbon stocks, capable of storing more than 200
metric tons of carbon per hectare.
Because of its inhospitable climate, tundra is
not widely subject to pressure for conversion to
other land uses. However, there is a lack of eco-
logical resilience, so that disturbances such as
those associated with settlenrient or long-distance
pipelines tend to have long-lasting effects. Global
warming is also already having an impact, as such
high-latitude areas are being subjected to the most
rapid levels of climate change anywhere on Earth,
causing melting of the permafrost, the loss of snow
and ice cover (including access to adjacent marine
resources via sea-ice), and replacement of habitat
by non-tundra species.
TABLE 2.13: PROTECTION OF TUNDRA
Ecosystem
area
Region Ikm^l
East Asia 23 GOO
Protected
area
Ikm2|
^000
%
protected
19
Europe
130 000
22 000
17
North America
3 228 000
525 000
16
North Eurasia
1 267 000
153 000
12
South America
33 000
6 000
18
Analysis based on
Figures rounded tc
GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
nearest thiousand km-.
Important protected areas in the tundra zone
include Wrangel Island Natural Reserve and World
Heritage Site in the far eastern part of the Russian
Federation, the core zone of which covers nearly
one million hectares and which is the northernmost
breeding site for over 100 migratory bird species.
Shrublands
Shrub communities, where woody plants, usually
adapted to fire, form a continuous cover, occur in all
parts of the world where annual rainfall lies in the
range 200-1 000 mm. In more arid areas, including
some semi-desert ecosystems, shrubs are the
dominant life form, but cover is discontinuous.
Areas dominated by shrubland systems may be
found in boreal regions, where they form a
transition between forests and tundra; in
subtropical areas, particularly those with a
Mediterranean-type climate; and in parts of the dry
Clanvrilliam daisy
[Euryops specio-
sissimus] in the
Cedarberg Wilderness
Area, South Africa.
61
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.U: PROTECTION OF SUBTROPICAL AND TROPICAL
SHRUBLANDS
Region
Ecosystem
area
Ikm2|
Protected
area
%
Ikm2|
protected
Australia/New Zealand
5U000
i2 000
8
East Asia
2/i9 000
18 000
7
Eastern and Southern Africa
99 000
7 000
7
Europe
119 000
8 000
7
Nortli Africa and Middle East
118 000
1 000
1
Nortfn America
237 000
A9 000
21
South America
36ii 000
15 000
4
Western and Central Africa
1 032 000
113 000
11
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km-.
TABLE 2.15: PROTECTION OF BOREAL SHRUBLANDS
Ecosystem Protected
area area
Region (km^j (km^)
Australia/New Zealand 22 000 1000
%
protected
5
East Asia
150 000
16 000
11
Europe
158 000
32 000
21
North America
2 061 000
430 OOC
21
North Eurasia
1 784 000
174 000
10
South America
59 000
7 000
12
Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data
Figures rounded to nearest thousand l<m^.
tropics where a shrubland/savanna mosaic occurs.
Under the GLC2000/UNEP-WCMC analysis used
here, the last of these are included in savannas,
discussed above. There are around 7 million km^
of other shrubland in total, of Vi^hich just over
4 million km' are in boreal regions and just under
3 million km^ in the subtropics.
While boreal shrublands, like other cold or
cold-temperate ecosystems, tend to have relatively
low/ levels of biodiversity, subtropical shrublands,
notably those in areas with a Mediterranean
climate, have very high levels of biodiversity, being
exceptionally rich in plant species.
Mediterranean-type drylands occur in only
five regions in the world, characterized by cool,
wet winters and warm, or hot, dry summers.
These are: the Mediterranean basin itself, south-
central and southwestern Australia, the Cape
Floral Kingdom, or fynbos, of southern Africa, the
Chilean Matorral, and some parts of California.
Mediterranean-type plants have attained extra-
ordinary levels of both diversity and endemism. It
has been estimated that as many as 20 percent of
the Earth's plant species are residents of
Mediterranean systems. The fynbos alone features
8 600 different plants, nearly 70 percent of which
are endemic. The Mediterranean basin harbors
about 25 000 species of vascular plants, of which
60 percent are endemic to the region. The arid
Australian southwest has around 2 500 vascular
plants that exist nowhere else in the world. More
than 2 000 of just under 3 500 plant species native
to California are endemic.
Because Mediterranean climates are so
equable, areas with such climates are invariably
heavily settled, with land under intense pressure
for agriculture (particularly citrus fruit crops and
winel and building development. Protected areas
in these regions are often small reserves or
recreational parks. Nevertheless, because of the
high diversity and endemism of the flora in
particular, even small areas may be of great
importance for the conservation of biodiversity. In
South Africa the recently declared 16 000 hectare
Cape Peninsula National Park is home to more
than 2 000 vascular plant species, of which 90
occur nowhere else and more than 140 are
considered threatened with extinction.
Caves and karst
The term karst refers to land systems that are
predominantly formed by solution and these
mostly occur in limestone or other carbonate
rocks. Carbonic acid that forms in rainwater,
largely from the solution of carbon dioxide, is
critical to the solution process; however, sulfur-
based acids formed from the oxidation of sulfides
or by bacterial metabolism in the presence of
sulfur are also commonly involved. Other solution
processes are driven by rising hydrothermal
waters, again often carrying acids formed from
bacterial or volcanic action. The solution process
often occurs underground, and caves are probably
the best known of all karst features. However, a
wide range of other features, including surface
depressions, collapses into caves below, cliffs and
gorges, pinnacles, hills or terraces of striking and
distinctive shapes, and distinctive forms of rock
pavements, can commonly be seen.
Karst scenery with its accompanying caves
also occurs, though much less frequently, in some
62
Protected areas and biodiversity
sandstones and quartzites, gypsum, and salt.
Other caves are found in lava flows, or some other
special contexts such as underneath talus, in
cavities resulting from tectonic action, and in ice.
The sea often carves out caves along coastal cliffs,
whAe some caves are "constructed" in the course
of coral deposition in the ocean. Other marine
caves, including the "blue holes" found across the
Caribbean, are probably terrestrial systems
formed during sea-level lows and then flooded by
the ocean, Karst is found on all continents and
many oceanic islands, and there are few countries
with no i<arst.
Quite apart from their outstanding geo-
diversity, caves and karst house important biodi-
versity. Surface karst systems often have a rich
flora and fauna, largely because of the extent to
which solutional erosion has carved out a great
number of microhabitats, each with its own
distinctive microclimate and soil. Surface water,
lakes, and rivers are often absent from karst areas
and this in turn has driven specific adaptations. In
cave systems, although biodiversity is low, there
are extraordinary levels of endemism with a
remarkable variety of specially adapted species
living in total darkness in the caves and other
fissures in the rock. Such adaptations often
include loss or reduction of eyes, expanded
appendages, improved olfactory organs, loss of
pigmentation, and sometimes reduction in
metabolic rate. Terrestrial cave species include
harvestmen, spiders, and scavenging beetles.
Aquatic cave fauna Istygofaunal includes fish and
numerous crustaceans. Perhaps the most
interesting are relict communities, typically of
crustaceans, which have been found in karst
groundwaters, whose origins date back to ancient
oceans such as the Tethys Sea.
Karst biodiversity, and even the karst Itself,
suffers extensive impact through quarrying,
cement manufacture, and flooding, and through
exploitative land uses. Including forestry and
agriculture, which disturb the overlying soils and
hence lead to sedimentation and changes In
patterns of groundwater movement. In addition,
the use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides further
degrades groundwater quality and may lead to loss
of biodiversity. Even misguided visitors can cause
immense damage - while efforts are commonly
made to protect stalactites and other spel-
eothems, the floors, which are potentially the most
important part of the cave from the scientific
perspective, are trampled, dug out to improve
access, or otherwise damaged.
Despite these pressures, there Is a relatively
high level of protection for the more spect-
acular cave and karst systems in many countries.
Thousands of caves are now developed with paths
and lighting for tourist visitors and a number of the
most important and spectacular systems are listed
as World Heritage sites. Overall, some 43 World
Heritage sites are either karst or cave systems
or have such systems within their boundaries
(although in the latter case these systems would
not necessarily have been the main reason for
listing). This represented a significant proportion of
the total number of natural |U9) and mixed cultural
and natural (23) sites inscribed on the list at mid-
2004. Such representation is considerably higher
than would be expected given the proportion of the
land's surface covered by such systems, which is
certainly far less than 25 percent.
Nine World Heritage sites were inscribed
primarily because of caves and other karst features:
J Plitvice Lakes, Croatia - a series of terraced
lakes;
3 Mammoth Cave National Park, USA;
J Skocjanske Jame, Slovenia;
□ Ha Long Bay, Vietnam - some 1 600 limestone
pinnacle islands;
□ Aggtelek-Domica Caves, which cross the
border between Hungary and Slovakia;
-I Carlsbad Caverns National Park, USA;
Q St Paul's Cave iPuerto-Princesa Underground
Riverl, Philippines;
Q Desembarco del Granma and the Cabo Cruz
coastal terraces, Cuba;
Many cave species, such
as this Georgia blind
salamander,
{Haideotiton watlacei],
are restricted to very
narrow ranges.
63
The world's protected areas
BOX 2.2: BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE HIMAUYAS AND
TIBETAN PLATEAU
In many montane regions, as elsewhere, protected areas tiave generally been
established where productivity and human use is low. The complex topography of
mountains makes this an especially pertinent issue as protected areas will
invariably include barren areas of rock and ice that are biologically depauperate,
overrepresentation of barren habitats in protected areas can be detrimental to
conservation efforts, placing an undue burden on conservation management and
resources. It is also difficult to justify additional protected areas to address gaps
when existing portfolios are inflated by the inclusion of barren habitats.
The protected area system of the Himalayan range and the Tibetan Plateau
was assessed to determine whether the current configuration adequately
represents the biologically important habitats, or if there is an overemphasis on
rock, permanent snow, and ice,
Ecoregions were used as the ecological units for the analysis, A digital
landcover map of 1 km resolution was used to identify areas classified as snow,
permanent ice, barren, and sparse vegetation (hereafter "barren habitat") within
the ecoregions. All protected area categories were considered (eg, iUCN
category! and types of protected areas equally.
Because of the complex topography in montane ecoregions, inclusion of
barren habitat in protected areas is virtually inevitable, especially if the protected
areas are large and representative of the ecoregions landscape mosaic. We
therefore created an index by dividing the percent of barren areas within the
protected areas system of each ecoregion by the percent of barren ground within
that ecoregion. A value of 1 indicates that the barren ground within the protected
areas is in direct proportion to that within the ecoregion as a whole; values less
than 1 indicate the protected areas include proportionately less barren ground
than occurs in the ecoregion as a whole; and values greater than 1 indicate that
barren areas are overrepresented in the protected areas system of that ecoregion.
The results showed that in ten of 18 ecoregions in the Himalayas and the
Tibetan Plateau the protected areas systems overrepresent barren habitat (Table
2.161. In five of these the absolute extent of excess barren land within the
protected areas systems was considerable, ranging from almost 1 000 km-' to
more than i 000 km^, areas far greater than many of Asia's protected areas.
With three exceptions, the ecoregions with overrepresentation of barren
habitat were from the montane grasslands and shrublands biome. The other
three comprised two subalpine conifer forest ecoregions and a temperate forest
ecoregion, but the extent of overrepresentation in these three was marginal.
The analysis showed that several of the high-elevation ecoregions in the
Himalayan range overrepresent barren habitat within the protected areas system.
Eventually, conservation success in the world's tallest mountain range will
depend on the ability and the will to include its threatened biodiversity, rather than
to protect extensive areas of barren habitat.
□ Gunung Mulu, Malaysia, which includes both
above-ground karst landscapes and caves,
including the world's largest cavern, over
600 m across and 80 nn in height, which is
also extremely important for biodiversity.
There remain a number of countries where karst
sites are not protected, or where protection is ineff-
ectual. This is at least partly linked to a lack of
understanding of the values of karst in many
countries. In addition, traditional protection has
focused on large and spectacular caves, with small
caves often neglected even if they are of consid-
erable importance scientifically or for conservation.
Mountain ecosystems
As with so many natural features, mountains are
easy to recognize but hard to define for purposes of
analysis. The definition of mountains used here is
that developed by Kapos ef al. (20001, which is based
on height and slope, and includes all areas above
2 500 m. as well as lower altitudes if their average
slopes are sufficiently great'. Using this definition,
some 27 percent of the world's land surface
[including Antarctica, almost all of which is mount-
ainous] can be classified as mountains.
fvlountain ecosystems are characterized by
altitudinal belts of vegetation [and corresponding
faunal components), largely determined by the
changing climatic parameters associated with
increasing elevation. Different aspects (compass
directions) on a mountain add to climatic and ecol-
ogical variation. Thus many different ecosystems
can be represented on a single mountain or over
relatively short distances. This high biodiversity is
further enhanced by high levels of endemism, as
many mountain habitats are isolated, even from
adjacent mountains, by deeper valleys with different
ecosystems, allowing for highly localized patterns of
species divergence.
In the humid tropics the bases of mountains
are dominated by lower montane rainforest,
followed in ascending order by montane rainforest
and then upper montane rainforest. This may
merge into montane cloud forest, where there are
persistent clouds. (These may be known as mossy,
dwarf, or elfin forests, or a host of local names.)
Here also can occur the bamboo forests of the
tropics and subtropics. The treeline ecotone occurs
at varying elevations depending on latitude, aspect,
and exposure. In the Central Andes, Po/y/ep/s trees,
the highest in the world, are found at up to 5 000 m.
Above treeline is the zone of alpine grasses,
herbs, shrubs, and tall rosette plants. Here, in the
tropical Andes, Puya ramondi, the world's tallest
herb, grows reaching 9 m in height. Here too, the
paramo [humid, cold grasslands] and puna (cold,
arid areas with low vegetation) occur, roughly from
66
1: Lower altitude areas are included based on ttie following cnteria, elevations between 1 500 and 2 500 m where the slope zl".
elevations between 1 500 and 1 000 m wtiere the slope >5° or the local elevation range (7 km radius! >300 m; elevations between 300
and 1 000 m wtiere ttie local elevation range 17 km radius! >300 m; isolated inner basins <25 Wm'' that are surrounded by mountains
Protected areas and biodiversity
TABLE 2.16: BARREN HABITAT IN HIMALAYAN AND TIBETAN PLATEAU ECOREGIONS AND PROTECTED AREAS
The representation index indicates the proportion of barren habitat in the protected areas system, relative to the ecoregion. The excess lor
deficit if negative) barren habitat represents the amount of barren habitat that is more lor less) than that expected under an equitable
representation of amount found in the ecoregion.
Ecoregion Ecoregion in Representation Excess barren
area protected area index habitat in
Biome/Ecoregion (km^) 1%) lO-ll protected areas Ikm^)
Deserts and xeric shrublands
Qaidam Basin semi-desert
192 072
7
0.9
-778 1
Montane grasslands and shrublands
Central Tibetan Plateau alpine steppe
653 994
8
0.7
-1 108
Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadovi/s
U2 265
32
1.5
3 380
Karakoram-West Tibetan Plateau alpine steppe
172 265
19
1.3
4 192
North Tibetan Plateau-Kunlun Mountains
alpine desert
385 851
52
0.7
-23 959
Northwestern Himalayan alpine shrub
and meadows
52 271
9
1.5
717
Pamir alpine desert and tundra
125 999
6
1.6
1 912
Qilian Mountains subalpine meadow
73 232
11
2.2
1 483
Southeast Tibet shrublands and meadow
A61 96i
2
0,8
-20
Tibetan Plateau alpine shrublands and meadows
27A174
D
0.0
-
Western Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows
77 854
12
1.5
954
Yarlunq Zambo and steppe
59 427
8
4.5
112
Temperate coniferous forests
Eastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forests
27 735
30
2.6
71
Northeastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forests
46 280
4
0.2
-32
Western Himalayan subalpine conifer forests
39 865
7
9.4
265
Temperate broadleafand mixed forests
Eastern Himalayan broadteaf forests
83 036
11
-
Northern Triangle temperate forests
10 730
3
-
Western Himalayan broadleaf forests
55 867
6
8.6
88
Protected area data based on WOPA 2003
3 000-3 500 m up to 4 800-5 000 m. These corre-
spond to the Afroalpine vegetation belt above
5 000 m in Africa. Many alpine meadows are also
important w/etland habitats. At the highest eleva-
tions barren ground occurs, with scattered cushion,
tuft, and rosette plants, and then permanent snow,
ice, or bare rock. In addition, at different elevations
are topographically dependent freshwater eco-
systems, such as tarns, ponds, and lakes.
Mountains in the protected areas networl<
Mountains are well represented in the global
protected area network. Excluding Antarctica,
which is almost entirely mountainous, according to
the definitions used here, but not subject to a
conventional protected areas regime, some
IB percent of the worlds montane area is included
in protected areas, compared with a global average
forthe worlds terrestrial biomes of 12 percent. At a
regional scale, of the mountain area of Eurasia and
Africa only 10-15 percent is protected, compared
with 23-32 percent in the other regions.
The fairly substantial extent of mountain
protected area must not be grounds for com-
placency. Of the total, 970 000 km^ are in the
Greenland National Park, and many significant
65
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.17: PROPORTION OF MOUNTAIN AREAS WITHIN PROTECTED AREAS
WCPA region
Australia/New Zealand
Mountain
area
Ikm2|
387 437
Protected
mountain area
Ikm2)
115 279
Mountain area
protected
1%)
30
Non-mountain
area protected
l%l
Caribbean
48 681
8 259
17
13
Central America
220 996
48 539
22
22
East Asia
6 158 088
1 375 130
22
9
Eastern and Southern Africa
2 667 385
396 477
15
15
Europe
1 564 138
239 889
15
9
North Africa and Middle East
3 121 156
180 817
6
11
North America
394 360
1 952 950
31
13
North Eurasia
5 461 429
510 826
9
7
Pacific
244 172
27 113
11
8
South America linct. Brazil!
3 422 280
305 993
19
8
South Asia
1 170 684
123 333
11
6
Southeast Asia
1 583 691
305 993
19
8
Western and Central Africa
907 937
97 093
11
10
Total lexcl. Antarctica!
33 352 434
5 996 075
18
12
Protected area data based on WDPA 2003
Lower altitude areas are included based on the following criteria: elevations between 1 500 and 2 500 m where the slope >2°,
elevations between 1 500 and 1 000 m where the slope >5° or the local elevation range (7 (<m radiusi >300 m; elevations
between 300 and 1 000 m where the local elevation range [7 l<nn radius! >300 m; isolated inner basins <25 l<m2 that are
surrounded by mountains-
mountain areas are either not represented or
are poorly represented, for example the Atlas
Mountains of North Africa, and montane regions of
Papua New Guinea and the Middle East.
Wetlands
Inland water ecosystems incorporate highly
productive habitats with a wide variety of physical
and chemical characteristics, including lakes and
rivers, wetlands and floodplains, small streams.
ponds, springs, and underground aquifers. All in
turn support a wide diversity of species that
provide valuable goods and services to people.
Many information sources have used "inland
waters" and "freshwaters" interchangeably, so in
this review we define inland water ecosystems to
include all inland aquatic systems extending to the
upper limit of tidal reaches within river estuaries
and including the world's inland saline lakes
and lagoons such as Lake Magadi and the Caspian
TABLE 2.18: ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF FRESHWATER RESOURCES BY CONTINENT
Resource
Large lakes
North
South
Africa
Europe
Asia
Australia
America
America
30 000
2 027
27 782
154
25 623
913
Rivers
195
80
565
25
250
1 000
Reservoirs
1 240
422
1 350
38
950
286
Groundwater
5 500 000
1 600 000
7 800 000
1 200 000
4 300 000
3 000 000
Wetlands!
341 000
925 0002
4 000
180 000
1 232 000
1 Wetlands are defined as including marshes, swamps, lagoons, bogs, floodplains. etc,
2 Eurasia.
Source: Groombndge and Jenkins. 1 998. Data refer to volume in km~\ except for wetlands whicfi refer to area in km-.
66
Protected areas and biodiversity
KEY
Lake
Reservoir
River
Freshwater marsh, floodplain
Swamp forest, flooded forest
Coastal wetland
Pan, brakish/saline wetland
Bog, fen, mire
Intermittent wettand/lake
50-100% wetland
25-50% wetland
Wetland complex {0-25% wetland)
Sea. Where "freshwater" is used, saline habitats
and their associated taxa are excluded. The ternn
"wetland", often used to define an aquatic system,
is used here to describe a particular group of
aquatic habitats representing a variety of shallow,
vegetated systems such as bogs, marshes,
swamps, floodplains, and coastal lagoons that are
often transitional areas and can flood, seasonally or
intermittently (Groombridge and Jenkins, 19981.
In spite of their clear economic value, many
inland water ecosystems, especially wetlands, have
long been considered a wasteful use of land and
are rarely protected. Lack of recognition of the value
of these systems has already led to the estimated
loss of 50 percent of the world's shallow-water
wetlands, and rates of species loss have, in some
cases, been estimated at five times the rates seen in
other ecosystems le.g. Myers 1997; Ricciardi and
Rasmussen, 19991.
Extent and distribution of inland water ecosystems
Freshwater makes up an estimated 3 percent of
the Earth's total water volume, a large proportion
of which is stored In the polar ice caps. The fresh-
water that is free to supply the world's lakes and
rivers constitutes less than 0.01 percent of the
total water volume. This small proportion supp-
orts all the world's freshwater ecosystems.
Regional differences in the volume of precip-
itation, and the area and geomorphology of
continental land surfaces have led to large
regional differences in the distribution of these
ecosystems (see Table 2.181.
Mapping and inventorying of wetland eco-
systems, particularly seasonal wetlands, presents
significant problems and it is very difficult to come
up with consistent estimates of wetland extent at
global and regional levels. The most comprehensive
recent attempt is that of Lehner and Doll I200AI,
whose Global Lakes and Wetlands Database draws
on a wide range of sources. They estimated that
wetlands covered around 1 1-13 million km'
globally, that is between 8 and 10 percent of global
land surface area excluding Antarctica and
glaciated Greenland. Of this, around 2.7 million km-
was lakes and reservoirs and the remainder rivers,
included flooded forests, floodplains, intermittent
wetlands and wetland complexes (Figure 2.31. Their
estimate of total wetland extent Is around twice that
produced by earlier analyses, including GLC2000.
This is a reflection of different criteria and
definitions used rather than major differences in the
underlying data - the former analysis incorporates
a range of wetland complexes including partially
flooded and seasonally flooded areas that are not all
labelled as wetlands under GLC2000. The latter,
however, still provides a useful conservative
estimate for wetland extent.
The biogeographic and ecological classifica-
tion of Inland water ecosystems is less well
developed than that for terrestrial ecosystems
and, although there are more than 50 classl-
Figure 2.3: Global
distribution of
wetlands
Source: Global lakes and
wetlands database GWLD
ILehner and Doll. 200il
67
The world's protected areas
KEY
Area protected, %
<io%
10-25%
■i >25%
..-.tw:^^
'€' '»"*■■■ — ^. ' ■■
^^'■,&^
%
.^
Figure 2.A:
Protected areas by
river basin, 2003
Note, This analysis does
not include all protected
areas Protected areas
without polygon
iboundaryl information
were excluded as it
was only possible to
determine the geographic
extent of the polygon data
in relation to the river
basins. This analysis
includes all nationally
and internationally
designated protected
areas with polygon
information. Australia's
most recent national
polygon data could not be
used for the analysis due
to licensing restrictions
Source- Revenga et at,.
1998: UNEP-WCMC,
2002.
fications in use, there is no globally accepted hier-
archical classification tor this group of habitats.
Some of the better l<nown wetland classification
schemes include the Canadian wetland class-
ification system (Zoltai and Vitt, 19951, the Asian
wetland classification system (Finlayson et at.
2002a and 2D02bl, and the US national wetland
classification scheme (Cowardin et al. 1979,
Cowardin and Golet 1995|.
Extent of existing protected areas
Because of the difficulty in defining and mapping
wetlands, it is not possible at present to come up
with a single agreed estimate of the global
percentage of inland water ecosystems under
protection. The WDPA (2003 figures! indicates that
roughly 1 2 percent of wetland area as recognized in
GLC2000 (including open water bodies and
mangroves! is under protection, almost all in
protected areas that have been assigned to lUCN
Management Categories I to VI. Preliminary
analysis using the the Global Lakes and Wetlands
Database (Lehner and Doll, 200^! and a slightly
though not significantly modified version of the
WDPA indicates a somewhat higher proportion
(around 20 percent! protected. A third approach,
extrapolating from the proportion of land area per
river basin that is under protection in a subset of the
world's larger river basins (Figure 2.A], indicates
global protection of around 13 percent, in line with
the GLC2000-based analysis.
At a regional level the three analyses show
good agreement on percentage of wetland area
protected in some regions, notably Australia. North
America and North Eurasia but considerable
variation elsewhere with, for example, estimates of
protection in North Africa and the Middle East
varying from 2 percent to 34 percent (Table 2.191. In
very general terms, all three analyses agree that
protection is relatively high (15 percent or more! in
Australia/New Zealand, the Caribbean. East Asia.
Eastern and Southern Africa. South America and
Southeast Asia. The analyses also agree that
protection is relatively low in North America and
North Eurasia (the two regions with the largest
areas of wetlands overall!. Figures for the
remaining regions are either incomplete (Central
America! or confict (North Africa and Middle East.
Pacific, South Asia and Western and Central Africa!.
As might be expected, the river basin analysis
shows that the rates of protection in different river
basins varies greatly both within and between
regions. Of the 115 basins analyzed, 73 (just over
60 percent! had less than 10 percent of their area
protected, 33 (30 percent! had between 10 and 25
percent of their area protected, and only nine basins
(8 percent! had more than 25 percent of their area
protected (Figure 2.5!. In all, over 90 percent of the
basins analyzed had less than 25 percent of their
land area protected.
Although superficially it might appear
from GIS analysis that inland water ecosystems are
68
Protected areas and biodiversity
TABLE 2.19: PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
Estimate
Region
Low
COOO km^l
High
COOO km21
Estimated % of wetland included
in protected areas
Based on Based on Using
GLC2000 Global lakes and river basin
wetlands database analysis
Australia/New Zealand
120
280
18
20
18
Caribbean
22
34
25
53
50
Central America
16
-iO
n/a
39
20
East Asia
200
1000
27
49
26
Eastern and Southern Africa
260
600
19
27
17
Europe
160
200
15
28
10
North Africa and Middle East
110
450
2
18
34
North America
UOO
2 900
10
32
10
North Eurasia
1800
2 200
9
13
11
Pacific
8
120
26
13
40
South America
625
1 700
15
35
17
South Asia
100
600
27
13
12
Southeast Asia
70
500
16
28
18
Western and Central Africa
150
900
10
20
7
Figures are rounded- Low estimate based on GLC2000, High estimates based on GLWD2006,
relatively well protected connpared with some other
nnajor biomes, there are a number of important
caveats. In the first instance, some areas that are
extremely important for inland water biodiversity
are very inadequately protected. Examples include
species-rich basins such as the Parana in South
America, the Fly in Papua New Guinea, and the
Mahakam and Salween Basins in Southeast Asia,
all of which have less than 10 percent of their basin
areas protected. More generally, inland water
systems are rarely accorded priority in protected
areas management plans; rivers, for example, often
Figure 2.5: Rannsar
sites by river basin,
2003.
Source: Revenga, 1998^
UNEP-WCMC, 2002.
^'^-^^^
KEY
Number of Ramsar sites
■i
1-6
■I 7-1 (
^ 17-33
^ 3i-iS
69
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.20: RAMSAR SITES OF DOMINANT WETLAND TYPES, 2006
Number of
designated
Wetland types sites
Estuanne waters 106
Intertidal mud, sand, or salt flats, and/or intertidal marshes
178
Intertidal forested wetlands
76
Coastal brackish/saline laqoons
144
Coastal freshwater laqoons
26
Inland deltas
26
Permanent and/or seasonal rivers/streams/creeks
127
Permanent and/or seasonal freshwater lakes
346
Permanent and/or seasonal saline/brackish/
alkaline lakes and flats
123
Permanent and/or seasonal saline/brackish/
alkaline marshes/pools
43
Permanent and/or seasonal freshwater
marshes/pools
185
Peatlands, non-forested and/or forested
200
Alpine wetlands
7
Tundra wetlands
16
Shrub-dominated wetlands
27
Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands
72
Freshwater springs; oases
9
Geothermal wetlands
2
Subterranean karst and cave hydroloqical systems
21
Human made wetlands lall types]
125
There are 520 Ramsar sites with one or more coastal/marine wetland type
Source: Ramsar Secretariat 2006.
dominant.
adjacent areas Icf both land and seal that are
not wetlands per se. The greatest number of sites
(60 percent of the total! were in Europe, but many
of these are small in size, such as Llyn Idwal
114 hectares], a small nutrient-poor mountain
valley lake in Wales. Other regions may have fewer
but larger sites, such as the Pacaya Samiria
National Reserve in Peru 12 080 000 hectares!,
making the land area distribution of sites more
evenly distributed at the global level.
Sites are designated using a flexible
approach to scale and may range from individual
springs or ponds of less than 1 hectare to wetlands
such as the Okavango Delta and Brazilian
Pantanal, more than 6 million and 3 million
hectares, respectively
The river basins with the greatest number of
Ramsar sites include the Amur, Danube, Elbe,
Niger, fviurray-Daring, Paraguary sub-basin and
Rhine-Maas, all of which have at least ten, with the
Danube alone having more than 60. At the other
extreme, many important river basins have no
Ramsar sites at all IWRI et ai. 2003] (Figure 2.6).
Marine and coastal ecosystems
lUCN defines a marine protected area as:
"Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together
witti its overlying water and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been
reserved by law or other effective means to protect
part or all of the enclosed environment. "
merely form the boundary of an area and are not
themselves afforded any notable protection status.
Furthermore, even in those cases where a relatively
large proportion of the basin is included within
protected areas, if associated habitats such as
forests and river headwaters are not also protected,
then the protected area may be largely ineffective.
Indeed, inland water ecosystems perhaps more
than any others call for an integrated approach to
protection as they are almost invariably heavily
influenced by factors beyond their boundaries.
Wetlands of International Importance
[Ramsar sitesi
Inland water bodies are well represented among
Ramsar sites (Table 2.201. The total land area
under Ramsar designation in 2005 covered app-
roximately 8.5 percent of the estimated minimum
total global wetland resources of around 1 300
million hectares IGroWl, 19991. Some sites include
This definition thus includes all sites, even largely
terrestrial sites that include any intertidal
element; they need not include any subtidal
waters. This clearly differs from certain
widespread perceptions of marine protected areas
(MPAsI as sites with predominantly subtidal
coverage. It remains a valuable definition,
however, because coastal and intertidal areas
include extensive and important habitats,
including mangrove forests, rocky shores, and
saltmarshes, which play a critical role in marine
biodiversity functioning. Ivtany protected areas
have been designated to include these habitats,
but would not be classified as "marine" if such a
definition required the presence of subtidal
waters. Here we consider marine and coastal
areas to include all marine waters including semi-
enclosed seas (but not the Caspian Seal as well as
intertidal habitats including estuarine waters.
70
Protected areas and biodiversity
BOX 2.3: MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
BENTHIC MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Intertidal:
Unvegetated sediments These include mud, sand, or salt flats, and beaches Isand and pebble).
Saltmarsh Areas vegetated by herbs, grasses or low shrubs. Commonly developing in the upper
tidal frame on finer sediments along protected coasts.
Mangrove Area vegetated by woody plants Imcluding Nipa palms and mangrove ferns], typically
in upper tidal frame. Can form large forests.
Rocky shores
Subtidal:
Bare sediments,
mud sand, or rubble
Large rock structures provide a secure base for a considerable diversity of species.
Zoned across the tidal frame, further modified by patterns of exposure and the
location of rock pools.
These represent the most widespread habitat on the surface of the globe. In all but the
shallowest waters they dominate, without any cover of benthic algae.
Algal-dominated In places where sufficient light reaches the ocean floor tvlay include encrusting algae,
sediments cyanobacteria, and microalgae.
Seagrass beds
Shallow sediments with a cover of seagrass Isubtidal vascular plantsl.
Rocky benthos. Quite rare in the open ocean, often associated with seamounts. Provides a holdfast for
largely unvegetated a great range of species including corals, bryozoans. worms, and mollusks.
Rocky benthos
with macroalgae
Often referred to as kelp forests.
Coral reefs Physical structures built from the carbonate skeletons of corals, often alongside other
calcifying organisms, in shallow waters.
Chemoautotrophic Associated with seismic activities including volcanic vents and cold seeps. Primary
communities productivity utilizes chemical compounds rather than light as a source of energy.
Other biogenic These include the deep-sea coral communities, but also structures built by worm and
structures mollusk shells Ivermitid reefs, oyster reefsl.
PELAGIC ECOSYSTEMS
A range of classification schemes has been developed, with subdivisions based on oceanographic patterns of
temperature, wind, or chlorophyll content in the waters. Longhurst (19981 has developed a global system based
on sea-surface productivity information derived from satellites. This system divides the world into four major
oceanic realms lAtlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern] and within each presents four primary biomes. Three, the
Polar, Westerly Winds, and Trade Winds biomes. are approximately latitudinally divided, while a fourth recognizes
the unique processes associated with coastal biomes.
These pelagic subdivisions can only be seen as generalized markers, partly because of the low resolution
at which they have been prepared, but equally importantly because the boundaries are determined by fluid
processes which change over timescales from days to decades. This latter point is of considerable importance
when considering the designation of protected areas for pelagic ecosystems.
The marine and coastal realm
Around 71 percent of the Earth's surface is marine
waters, with an average depth of 3 900 m. The vast
majority (67 percent of the Earth's surface! lies oft
the continental shelf. From a political perspective
about 37 percent of the ocean area lies within 200
nautical miles of a coastline and hence may fall
under some level of national jurisdiction.
There is little agreement on a habitat classif-
ication scheme for the oceans, and even greater
problems arise in the presentation of marine habi-
tats on maps at the global level. Part of the
problem stems from the very nature of the marine
environment which, being three-dimensional, can
be host to multiple different ecosystems through
the water column. Such dimensions cannot be
71
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.21 : MARINE ECOREGIONS OF THE WORLD
The 12 Realms and 62 Provinces ot the M
arine Ecoregions of the World c
lassification, which covers all coastal |
seas. Within these, some 232 ecoregions
have been identified.
ARCTIC
WESTERN INDO-PACIFIC
TROPICAL EASTERN PACIFIC
1 Arctic
18
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
43
Tropical East Pacific
19
Somali/Arabian
44
Galapagos
TEMPERATE NORTHERN
20
Western Indian Ocean
ATLANTIC
21
West and South Indian Shelf
TEMPERATE SOUTH AMERICA |
2 Northern European Seas
22
Central Indian Ocean Islands
45
Warm Temperate
3 Lusitanian
23
Bay of Bengal
Southeastern Pacific
It, Mediterranean Sea
24
Andaman
46
Juan Fernandez and
5 Cold Temperate Northwest
Desventuradas
Atlantic
CENTRAL INDO-PACIFIC
47
Warm Temperate
6 Warm Temperate Northwest
25
South China Sea
Southwestern Atlantic
Atlantic
26
Sunda Shelf
48
Magellanic
7 Blacl( Sea
27
28
Java Transitional
South Kuroshio
49
Tristan Gough
TEMPERATE NORTHERN PACIFIC
29
Tropical Northwestern
TEMPERATE SOUTHERN AFRICA |
8 Cold Temperate Northwest
Pacific
50
Benguela
Pacific
30
Western Coral Triangle
51
Agulhas
9 Warm Temperate Northwest
31
Eastern Coral Triangle
52
Amsterdam-St Paul
Pacific
32
Sahul Shelf
10 Cold Temperate Northeast
33
Northeast Australian Shelf
TEMPERATE AUSTRALASIA |
Pacific
34
Northwest Australian Shelf
53
Northern New Zealand
1 1 Warm Temperate Northeast
35
Tropical Southwestern
54
Southern New Zealand
Pacific
Pacific
55
East Central Australian
36
Lord Howe and Norfolk
Shelf
TROPICAL ATLANTIC
Islands
56
Southeast Australian Shelf
12 Tropical Northwestern
57
Southwest Australian Shelf
Atlantic
EAbltKN INDO-PACIFIC
58
West Central Australian
13 North Brazil Shelf
37
Hawaii
Shelf
U Tropical Southwestern
38
Marshall. Gilbert and Ellis
Atlantic
Islands
SOUTHERN OCEAN |
15 St, Helena and Ascension
39
Central Polynesia
59
Subantarctic Islands
Islands
40
Southeast Polynesia
60
Scotia Sea
16 West African Transition
41
Marquesas
61
Continental High Antarctic
17 Gulf of Guinea
42
Easter Island
62
Subantarctic New Zealand
captured on a maps flat surface. In addition, the
l^nowledge base for many of these ecosystems
remains remarkably poor. The most widespread
ecosystem on Earth is made up of deep-ocean
muddy benthos and yet our knowledge of this is
restricted to a minuscule area which has been
trawled or cored with costly equipment. A further
difficulty in the development of maps is the fact
that biological boundaries in the fluid ocean
environment shift constantly, season to season,
year to year, and over longer timescales.
Most habitat classification schemes are based
on a combination of physical and biological criteria.
Although apparently simple, this system is both
hierarchical and three-dimensional. We cannot map
this from the air on a single sheet as there are
multiple overlapping habitats. A protected area
drawn on the water surface could incorporate these
multiple systems, although in many cases protected
areas may be targeted at only a single system, such
as coral reefs, and tail to protect other systems
such as overlying pelagic ecosystems.
72
Protected areas and biodiversity
Fringing coral reefs in
Ningaloo Marine Park,
Western Australia.
The vast majority of MPAs lie in near-coastal
waters within the shallow photic zone or in the
intertidal zone. Here more detailed habitat
definitions have been developed. A simple schema
derived from a number of these, including the
Ramsar wetlands classification scheme, is
presented in Box 2.3, together with brief notes
about their definitions, biodiversity importance, and
available l<nowledge of their distribution and status.
Another approach for classifying the marine
environment, which avoids the challenges of
detailed habitat mapping, looks at taxonomic or
evolutionary patterns and describes areas of
homogeneity across a range of habitats. This is the
approach used in the Marine Ecoregions of the
World classification, developed by a consortium of
NGO scientists and academics ISpalding et at.,
20071. This classification divides coast and shelf
waters into a tiered system of 12 realms, 62
provinces and 232 ecoregions (Table 2.211. The
system has good synergies with other class-
ifications, such as the Large Marine Ecosystems,
while the finest-scale ecoregions have already been
widely used in a number of regions (Australia, North
and South America, East Africa) for conservation
planning and for monitoring conservation progress.
To a very large degree, coastal and contin-
ental shelf waters are of greatest importance for
biodiversity, and to human interest. The intertidal
zone is a region of high productivity and biodiversity
Mangrove forests and saltmarshes are among the
most productive ecosystems in the marine realm.
Adjacent waters are generally nutrient rich and
suffused with light, enabling high levels of
productivity and supporting, in many areas, a vast
array of life forms. Pelagic ecosystems can also be
highly productive, particularly in areas of regular
upwelling such as the western continental shelves
of South Africa and South America.
Until the 1960s it was generally believed that
deep-ocean silaceous muds were largely devoid of
species. This was because of the sampling methods
used, in which filters allowed most species to
escape sampling. It is now suggested that there
could be 10 million species living in these
communities, almost entirely undescribed by
scientists. The first hydrothermal vents were
discovered in 1977 - these, together with cold
seeps, are now l<nown to be widespread, the
only ecosystems on the planet that are totally
independent of light and based rather on chemo-
synthesis. Also, in offshore waters, are large
numbers of seamounts that rise great distances
from the sea floor These structures often include
rocky benthos and play host to numerous species
still little known to science.
Human impacts on the seas are pervasive and
rapidly increasing. Overfishing is perhaps the most
obvious case FAO (20071 estimates that in 2005
"around one quarter of the stock groups monitored
by FAO were underexploited or moderately exploited
and could perhaps produce more, whereas about
73
The world's protected areas
TABLE 2.22; BREAKDOWN OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS BY WCPA REGION, 2004
Number Protected Marine area
of marine area in WCPA region
WCPA region sites (km^j Ikm^approx.l'
Antarctic 59 65 093
Marine
area protected
(%l
Australia/New Zealand
A37
423 350
12 398 000
3.4
Brazil
83
14 190
3 661 000
0.4
Caribbean
357
42 037
3 976 000
1.1
Central America
104
16018
1 501 000
1.1
East Asia
283
31389
5 523 000
0.6
Eastern and Southern Africa
139
5317
8 339 000
0.1
Europe
848
67 490
9 548 000
0.7
North Africa and Middle East
134
23 542
3 459 000
0.7
North America
695
212 125
1 7 740 000
1.2
North Eurasia
82
217 839
7 719 000
2.8
Pacific
168
357 203
32 372 000
1.1
South America
115
72 209
8 432 000
0.9
South Asia
184
5 160
4 692 000
0.1
Southeast Asia
387
75 934
8 652 000
0.9
Western and Central Africa
41
10 169
3 606 000
0.3
1 , These estimates are based on pre
coastlines using unofficial EEZ boun
iminary and unverified estimates of marine waters within 200 nautical m
daries. These are crude approximations only
les of the
half of the stocks were fully exploited and therefore
producing catches that were at, or close to, their
nnaximum sustainable limits, with no room tor
further expansion. The remaining stocks were
either overexploited, depleted or recovering from
depletion and thus were yielding less than their
maximum potential" owing to excess fishing
pressure. Other studies have suggested that the
situation may, in fact, be far worse. Recent studies
on larger predatory fishes (including tuna and codi
have suggested that almost all stocks worldwide
have declined by 90 percent from their pre-
industrial levels. Nearshore fisheries have probably
undergone similar collapses in many areas,
although reporting is more difficult.
Some fishing techniques, particularly bottom
trawling, may have serious collateral impact
through habitat loss and degradation. In a recent
study of traw/ling in 24 countries it was estimated
that 57 percent of the continental shelf area was
within trawling grounds. A separate study
estimated that the total area actually damaged by
these trawls was some 14.8 million km^ lone and a
half times the area of the USAl each year. In many
ecosytems the use of trawls is highly destructive,
destroying benthic species such as corals, sponges.
and seagrasses. Such Impacts were until recently
largely confined to Inshore and continental shelf
habitats, but are now extending into deeper waters
(up to 1 500 m or more) on continental slopes and
around seamounts. In such waters, recovery from
these impacts could take centuries.
Habitat destruction is also widely reported In
intertidal areas. Although there are no accurate
global estimates it has been suggested that 30-50
percent of the world's mangrove forests have been
lost. Although there have been various suggestions
that between 1 and 30 percent of the world's coral
reefs have also been lost, these are not based on
any rigorous calculations. Many areas of mangrove,
saltmarsh, and other habitat have been lost to land
reclamation and/or the building of aquaculture
ponds or salt-pans. Coastal construction and sand
mining in wide areas has led to erosion and beach
loss. A further cause for concern in inshore waters
and semi-enclosed seas such as the Mediter-
ranean and Black Sea is the rapidly Increasing
introduction of alien species, often In ships' ballast
waters. The impact of the comb jelly Mnemiopsis
teidyi or\ the Black Sea is a well-known case.
Human impacts on pelagic systems are more
difficult to discern or to quantify. Habitat loss Is
74
Protected areas and biodiversity
no longer a relevant term in this environment;
however, degradation is widespread, perhaps
ubiquitous. The collapse of many pelagic fish stocl<s
is one such indicator Another is the presence of
pollutants. Many coastal areas are afflicted by
nutrient and chemical pollution arising from
untreated sewage, industrial waste, and agricul-
tural run-off. Certain highly persistent organic
pollutants IPOPsI can now be detected in all oceans,
and there are particular concerns where these are
building up in polar regions.
Marine protected areas
Major updates on marine protected areas in WDPA
are underway, but unfortunately were not available
for this work and so the information presented in
Table 2.22 represents information from 2003. At this
time there were just over ^ 000 MPAs covering an
estimated 1 600 000 km', or rather less than 0.5
percent of the world's ocean surface.
Regionally, there is considerable variation in
the application of MPAs. with Australia/New
Zealand currently the most highly protected region
in terms of aerial coverage. The total marine area
protected amounts to more than 3 percent of the
exclusive economic zone (EEZI of this region.
Although this is heavily weighted by the influence of
the Great Barrier Reef, there remains a large
number of other sites, some quite big. throughout
this region. While Europe has the highest number of
sites, the average marine area covered by these
sites remains small. In fact, caution is also nec-
essary here, as many of these sites are essentially
terrestrial, with only minor intertidal or subtidal
areas, while few have any meaningful restrictions.
The UK. for example, is listed as having 2A2 MPAs.
and yet the vast majority have no restrictions on
fishing or anchoring activities and must be
considered to be of little value in offering direct
protection to marine biodiversity
North Eurasia also shows considerable
protection in terms of area coverage. This is
dominated by a few very large sites along the
Russian Arctic. The Caribbean and Central America,
being some of the smallest regions in geographic
extent, show better protection than many other
areas, both with about 1.1 percent of their EEZ
areas protected, but this protection is broadly
dispersed with sites across each region. The Indian
Ocean represents perhaps the least protected
region in the world, with the Eastern and Southern
Africa and the South Asia regions protecting only 0.1
percent of their EEZ areas.
Many of the statistics relating to MPAs are
skewed by the influence of a few very large sites,
notably the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National
Monument. These two sites make up more than
680 000 km', or A] percent of the entire MPA
estate 10.2 percent of the global ocean surface). In
reality most MPAs are relatively small - even the
median size of sites assessed here 129 km'l is
clearly inflated as most of the 1 000 sites of
unknown area in this dataset lie at the smaller end
of the spectrum.
Gaps and priorities: The existing global "network"
of protected areas is, to date, very small indeed,
and woefully inadequate in its coverage of marine
ecosystems. Perhaps the most immediate gap is
the lack of sites in the open sea. Few of the existing
MPAs fall outside the 3-12-nautical-mile territ-
orial waters that are claimed by most countries.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCL05). nations are allowed to
manage waters up to 200 nautical miles. They have
exclusive jurisdictional rights over living resources
within this zone, and these rights are further
weighted by obligations to conserve those
resources. Despite this, only a few MPAs extend
into the EEZ. and typically these are the largest
sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef, the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the Heard Island
and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve, and the
Galapagos Marine Resource Reserve. The
application of international conventions has been
similarly limited outside territorial waters; there
are precedents, however, including the Seaflower
Biosphere Reserve in Colombia and the Pracel
Manoel Luis Ramsar Site in Brazil.
There are. however, signs of change (see
Chapter 61 - new and larger sites, and more
comprehensive networks of MPAs are now being
established. This may partly be in response to
the commitments made at the World Summit
for Sustainable Development to establish repre-
sentative networks of MPAs by 2012. There are
also growing moves to establish a legal and
administrative framework for protection in the
high seas.
75
The world's protected areas
Chapter 3
Threats to
protected areas
Contributors: S. Stolton and N. Dudley: Wildlife: E.L Bennett; Alien species: J. Jamsranjav and M. Spalding; Impacts
from beyond the boundaries: N. Dudley, B. Pressey, 5. Stolton; Climate change: M. Spalding and S. Chape; Forest
conversion, Lao PDR: K. Berkmuller; Resource extraction: Liz Bennett; World Heritage in Danger: N.lshwaran
As we have seen in the preceding chapter, protected
areas have been established, among other reasons,
for the purpose of conserving natural heritage. For
this conservation role to be fulfilled, essential
natural and evolutionary processes and biodiversity
composition (species and habitats) must be
retained. A variety of factors can act on protected
areas and the biodiversity they contain to
compromise their functional integrity. This chapter
reviews the most important threats and suggests
ways in which some of these can be addressed.
This chapter gives an overview of some of the
threats and pressures facing protected areas but
does not attempt to discuss their underlying causes
or to apportion blame. While we can be justifiably
angry if a large company flagrantly degrades a pro-
tected area for profit, the relationship between
many local communities and protected areas is far
more complex. In some countries, people have lost
land and resources during the creation of protected
areas, often with little or no compensation; often
the poorest members of society bear the brunt
of such changes. Their continued "illegal" use of
such resources is sometimes hard to criticise. We
highlight here the real and serious threats to
protected areas but recognise that these have many
and varied causes, some of which are outside the
control of the people actually involved in carrying
out the degradation. Responding to pressures
requires a wide range of different strategies that
extend well beyond simple punitive actions.
HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND INCURSION
Protected areas are often the home or resource
base for thousands of people. These populations
may be an integral part of a protected area and may
contribute to the successful functioning of the site,
but elsewhere the close proximity of humans and
protected areas can be the source a broad suite of
problems. Research suggests that 80 percent of
Latin America's protected areas are inhabited
(Amend & Amend, 1992), and the agricultural
frontier has moved into many protected areas In
Central America (Rojas & Cruz, 1998). Most African
national parks contain human communities, some
of whom may be oblivious to the aims of protection
(Sournia, 19981. There is also extensive settlement
within many protected areas In Asia and the Pacific.
Research in India found human populations in 56
percent of national parks and 72 percent of
sanctuaries, often at higher population densities
than the average for the country (Singh, 2000). Even
when protected areas remain un-settled, clearance
of land up to the borders Is common, leaving them
as "islands" in a sea of altered landscape and
undermining the concept of buffer zones or a
protected area network.
In some areas humans are an integral part of
the ecosystem, and Indeed their presence may be
vital for ecosystem function to be maintained, but
human settlement can also act detrimentally
on protected areas. Adverse impacts can arise
through:
□ Expansion of numbers or influence of existing
settlements within or around protected areas,
either through illegal activities, such as
hunting, or because agreed activities increase
in scope and Impact;
J Increase in permanent settlement within
protected areas because of land shortages In
76
Threats to protected areas
S. Chape
Clearing on edge of Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area, Lao PDR.
77
The world's protected areas
TABLE 3.1 : TYPES OF THREATS TO PROTECTED AREAS
Threat type Examples of threats
Physical
Fire larsoni, severe storm events, geological incidents.
Biological
Introduced plants, introduced animals and organisms.
Direct human threats
Habitat fragmentation, mining, poaching, hunting, and disturbance to fauna,
fishing, collecting, grazing, and harvesting of flora, trampling, structure
development, access development, utility corridors, communications structures,
urbanization, pollution, collecting, managerial damage, vandalism, emergency
response damage, arson, squatting, drug cultivation and trafficking, terrorism,
and damage from violent conflict
Indirect human threats
Adjoining community and land-use encroachments, impacts to climate,
catchments, air and water quality, and poor land-use planning
Legal status threats
Absent or inadequate legal protection, lack of clarity of ownership, inadequate
legislation
On-ground
Absence of on-ground management, absence of law enforcement, difficulty of
monitoring management threats illegal activities
On-ground social
threats
Conflict of cultural beliefs and practices with protected area objectives, presence
of bribery and corruption, pressures placed on managers to exploit protected
area resources, difficulty of recruitment and retention of employees
Socio-political-
economic threats
Lack of political support, inadequate funding, inadequate staffing, inadequate
resources, absent or unclear policies, and community opposition
Design threats
Inadequate geographic size, shape, location, connectivity, or replication of an
individual protected area and/or a system of protected areas to achieve effective
conservation of biodiversity and other heritage
Managerial threats
Absence of strategic planning, human resource and budget systems, plans of
management, effective operations, and effectiveness evaluation systems
Sources: Hocl<ing5, Stollon & Dudley 2000. Ervin 2003, Worboys 200A.
surrounding areas or because protected areas
offer particular benefits;
□ Sudden, temporary incursions of human
populations for a particular purpose, such as
transhumance and search for good pasture,
or seeking particular economic goals such
as mining;
□ Temporary settlements around protected
areas, including, for example, of war refugees
or refugees following disasters such as
flooding, hurricanes, or the impacts of drought.
Agriculture in its various forms consistently
emerges as the number-one "threat" to biodiversity
and natural ecosystems In terrestrial habitats, with
agricultural pollution also a significant damaging
factor in many aquatic ecosystems. Although an
increase in agricultural activity is often assumed to
be the result of human population growth - causing
an apparently simple tension to arise between food
and wildlife - most of the impacts, particularly on
protected areas, are more complex. Agriculture can
influence protected areas in a number of ways.
Q Incursion and settlement by farmers
or landless migrants is a critical problem in
those areas where land is scarce either as a
result of total population size or because
land ownership is concentrated in the hands
of just a few people. For example, the need
for more agricultural production to meet the
increasing demand of buffer-zone com-
munities in Pakistan has resulted in felling of
forest patches within protected areas
(Ahmad Khan, 19971.
□ Incursion by nomadic people and grazing
animals can conflict with wild animal
populations and have an impact on grass-
lands. Nomadic people use virtually all the
protected areas in West Africa, and this is a
particular pressure on wildlife in Niger, Togo,
and Benin (Sournia, 19981.
G Increases in the intensity of agricultural
pressure can affect protected areas where
traditional agriculture is still allowed.
78
Threats to protected areas
Research in India found that the average
density of livestock inside national parks in
India is higher than outside (Singh, 19991.
□ Illegal cultivation, for example of narcotics and
other high value crops [See Box 3.1], can take
place in protected areas. Drug production has
been identified as a problem in at least 16 of
Colombia's protected areas ICastafio Uribe,
19921.
□ Illegal land clearance to establish agricultural
operations can affect protected areas. The
majority of the important forest fires that
occurred in Brazil, Indonesia, and other
countries at the end of the 1 990s were created
to establish plantations or cattle ranches;
some of these spread to protected areas
(Dudley, 1997).
□ Drainage for agriculture can be a threat,
particularly to wetlands where small changes
in the water table can be disastrous. An
extensive system of drainage channels est-
ablished in the Neusiedler See region between
1900 and 1970 has led to a marked drop in
groundwater levels. This poses a serious long-
term threat for the shared Austrian and
Hungarian Seewinkel/Fertd-Hansag Trans-
boundary National Park's soda lakes, season-
ally flooded alkaline steppes, calcareous fens,
and wet meadows (Dick et al., 1994).
□ Water extraction for irrigation can have
serious impacts in some areas, either
through the rapid exhaustion of groundwater
resources or because irrigation has led
to changes such as salmization, aband-
onment of land, and eventual desertification.
The Sunderbans Wildlife Sanctuary in
Bangladesh is threatened by changes to
water flow and salinity as a result of abs-
traction and use in the Ganges Basin (Rashid
& Kabir, 19981.
Q Agricultural pollution runs off into fresh-
water and eventually also marine systems,
and affects protected areas through eutro-
phication, pesticide pollution, and deposition
of heavy metals. Intensive agriculture is
suspected of causing a dramatic decline in
amphibians in Point Pelee National Park in
Canada, with 6 out of 11 species having
disappeared (Parks Canada, 1998).
□ In some areas, particularly in Europe, the
abandonment of agriculture in protected areas
is resulting in a reduction in biodiversity in
areas where traditional cultural practices have
become an established part of the ecosystem
IStolton, Geier & McNeely, 2000).
CHANGES IN FIRE REGIMES
The frequency of natural fires depends on climate,
geography, and ecology. Under natural conditions
some ecosystems almost never catch fire, whilst in
others fire plays an important role, for instance by
facilitating germination and release of seeds, or
opening the canopy to allow in light and stimulate
growth. Changing fire regimes can have a major
impact on ecosystems. Changes are often assoc-
iated with increased human creation of fire - for
land clearance, through vandalism, or simply by
accident - or may be because of more subtle
changes in fire ecology resulting from particular
management practices, agricultural systems, or as
a result of climate change. Reduction of frequency
and concomittant increase in intensity of fires
can have particularly adverse effects on fire-
adapted ecosystems.
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
Badly planned roads or other routes into protected
areas can increase damage, through tourist
pressure or by increased incursion, illegal use, and
settlement. A European Development Fund project
to upgrade a road in southern Cameroon led to
increased logging and poaching, with 27 poaching
camps observed within the Dja World Heritage Site
(Rice & Counsell, 1998). Problems are worse when
people have no proper land tenure rights, sug-
gesting that disenfranchised and resentful
communities on the edge of protected areas are
likely to use roads to remove salable resources.
Research by the University of Florida, for example,
found that subsistence farmers holding title to
land along the Transamazon Highway in Brazil are
more likely to maintain valuable wood and
undertake reforestation activities, and are less
likely to participate in the timber markets
(Resources, 1999).
In Australia, the entire local population
(estimated at 19 individuals) of the eastern quoll
[Dasyurus wvernnusl in a part of Cradle Mountain
National Park, Tasmania, was extirpated within 17
months of upgrading three kilometers of road in
the protected area, apparently as a direct result of
greatly increased road mortality Introduction of
remedial measures led to the species reestab-
lishing itself within six months (Jones, 2000).
79
The world's protected areas
TABLE 3.2: Tht
Element
■eats to Protected Areas from Tourism and Recreation
Examples of threat from tourism and recreation activities
Ecosystems
The construction of accommodation, visitor centers, infrastructure, fences, access roads,
w;alking tracks, and other services has a direct effect on the environment, by vegetation
removal, animal disturbance, elimination of habitats, and changes to drainage patterns.
Wildlife habitat may be significantly changed (travel routes, feeding areas, breeding areas,
etcl by tourist development and use.
Tourism and recreational activities including boaling, off-road vehicle use. mountain-bike
riding, horse riding, caving, mountaineering, hiking and camping, and loud noise affect
natural values-
Weeds (garden flow/ers and non-native grasses! and pest animals Icats and dogs) can be
introduced by residents accommodated within protected areas.
Soils
Trampling and soil compaction can occur in certain well-used areas. Soil contamination
can occur with fertilizers, pesticides, and pollution from vehicles. Soil removal and soil
erosion also occur, and may continue after the disturbance is gone.
Geology
Damage to cave formations and mineral sites can occur from illegal fossil collecting.
Sand dunes and reefs are also susceptible to damage.
Vegetation
Concentrated use around facilities has a negative effect on vegetation.
Transportation may have direct negative effects on the environment (vegetation removal.
weed introduction, animal disturbance!.
Fire frequency may change due to tourists and park tourism management.
Water
Visitation increases demands for fresh water
Disposal of sewage causes environmental effects even if it is within license limits.
Visitation can also lead to solid waste dumped in waterways, erosion of stream banks,
and increased turbidity.
Air
Motorized transportation may cause pollution from emissions; smoke from lodge fires
can cause pollution in mountain valleys.
Visitor use can increase energy consumption and cause greenhouse gas emissions.
Wildlife
Major issues include handfeeding. spotlighting, disturbance to nesting birds, disruption
of foraging, and loss of energy reserves and local habitat disturbance.
Fishing may change population dynamics of native species.
Fishers may demand the introduction of foreign species, and increase populations of
target animals.
Impacts occur on insects and small invertebrates from effects of transportation and
introduced species.
Disturbance by visitors can occur for all species, including those that are not attracting
visitors. Disturbance can be of several kinds: noise, visual, or harassing behavior
Habituation to humans can cause changed wildlife behavior, such as approaching
people for food.
Vehicle traffic gives rise to wildlife road kills.
Cultural
impacts
Theft, vandalism, and overuse can adversely affect cultural sites, while culturally insensitive
or inappropriate behavior can undermine cultural traditions and rules.
Sources: Buckley & Pannell, 1990; Gee. Makers & Choy. 1997. Green & Higginbottom. 2001; Eagles & McCool, 2002;
Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002; Newsome, Moore & Dowling, 2002; Buckley Pickering & Weaver. 2003; Christ et aL. 2003.
TOURISM AND RECREATION
While tourism and recreation bring much-needed
recognition and considerable financial benefits to
protected areas and local economies in most
parts of the world, they are not without drawbacks.
Without effective management and responsible
action, growth in tourism can lead to the
destruction of environments and destinations and
may provide few benefits to local communities
(Haroon, 2002; UNEP, 2002). The tourism industry,
like many other industries, uses resources such
as water and energy, contributes to greenhouse
gas emissions, and produces solid wastes.
International and national tourists use the
equivalent of 80 percent of Japans yearly primary
energy supply (5 000 million kWh/yearl, produce
80
Threats to protected areas
the same amount of solid waste as France 135
million tons per year], and consume three times
the amount of fresh water as is contained in Lake
Superior, between Canada and the USA, in a year
110 million cubic meters! (Christ etai, 20031. Major
threats arising from tourism and recreation are
examined in Table 3.2.
RESOURCE extraction
Resource extraction includes extraction by local
people or park dwellers, and by outsiders. Local
people tend to impact through hunting, fishing,
fodder and fuelwood collection, water extraction,
and in forests also by logging - all of these, however,
can also have a commercial aspect. Resource
extraction can have a wide range of impacts on both
target and non-target resources.
Fuelwood
Fuelwood is the primary energy source for almost
half the worlds population. It is often collected from
protected areas, either legally through agreements
or illegally. Low-level collection for domestic use by
surrounding communities probably has little long-
term impact, except if particular types of wood are
targeted over time Ifor example, if all dead wood is
collected thus removing an important microhabitatl.
However, fuelwood collection can become prob-
lematic when demand becomes unsustainable.
After the Rwandan war, refugee camps set up next
to protected areas created major fuelwood demands
(Kanyamibwa, 1998). Similarly, conditions of
economic crisis can increase reliance on fuelwood:
for example, many people in Romania turned to
protected forests for fuel supplies as a result of an
abrupt downturn in the economy (Radu, 1995). In
Vietnam, the commercialization of fuelwood
collection was reported to be putting stress on the
forests in parts of the Ba Vi National Park
(Poffenberger, 19981.
Timber
The wide-ranging threats to the Earth's forest
ecosystems were discussed in Chapter 2. These
threats remain significant in many parts of the world
even when forests are placed within protected
areas. Illegal or semi-legal felling of timber - for
local use, local sale, or for export in the inter-
national timber trade - threatens many natural
forests in conservation areas. Most illegal logging
targets a few valuable species, although larger
operations sometimes take place in protected areas
where management is very poorly implemented or
where the reserve is weakly protected by law. In
Cambodia, civil war resulted in massive illegal
logging during the 1990s (Global Witness, 1995;
1996; 1998), including within protected areas
established by Royal Decree in 1993. A recent report
(ICEM, 20031 concluded that "the past five years has
seen a steady eating away at the quality of natural
systems within protected areas and the surrounding
environment, by major government and private
development interests and local communities". In
some countries, governments allow logging in
protected areas, resulting in many "protected
areas" not actually attaining the kind of old-growth
characteristics that are essential for some species.
In Gabon, logging activities are allowed within all
protected areas and logging activities have affected
sites in varying proportions [Brugiere, 19991. A
combination of logging and agricultural incursion
often results in devastating impacts on tropical
forest ecosystems as in Sumatra, Indonesia.
Wildlife
The presence of an intact-looking protected area on
a map, or even in a satellite photo, is not necessarily
indicative of conservation objectives being achieved.
Across the tropical world, hunting is draining
wildlife at ever-increasing rates, due to a synergetic
linkage of many recent changes, including growing
Forest fragmentation in
Sumatra, Indonesia
betwreen 1982 and 2001.
KEY
■ 1 Highly fragmented
mi
■•5
6
7
8
9
■ 10 High spatial
integrity
Source: UNEP-WCMC
X-..
81
The world's protected areas
BOX 3.1: FOREST CONVERSION TO COFFEE IN DONG HUA SAO PROTECTED AREA , LAO PDR
The Lao People's Democratic Republic, or Laos, has
20 National Protected Areas or NPAs declared in
1993, 1995 and 1996. Dong Hua Sao IDHSI NPA was
among the first 18 sites designated in October 1993,
with an area of 1100 \<m^. The area contains two rare
habitats: lowland dry-evergreen forest interspersed
with wetlands and the upland evergreen forest of the
Boloven Plateau. Even at that time, only around 500
km^ of the upland forest remained on the 3,800 km^
plateau in large and contiguous tracts, having been
subject to shifting cultivation for centuries. Approx-
imately 100 km^of the upland forest was within DHS.
Over the past decade this area has continued to
decline as a result of incursions and clearance for
commercial small-holder coffee plantations.
The problem and its causes
By the time DHS came under management in mid-
1995, it already faced a major problem of upland
deforestation. Aerial photographs from 1995 indicated
that about 50 km^ of upland forest inside the reserve
area had been partly converted to coffee plantations.
Protected area staff continued to locate new clearings
but were unable to keep up with the pace of defor-
estation. It was evident that encroachment of prime
upland forest posed a real threat to the conservation
values of DHS, and at a scale far beyond that which
the protected area staff could effectively deal with.
DHS is located on fertile volcanic soils. Despite
the fact that the area of such soils with the protected
area is much smaller than that outside, most of the
expansion in coffee cultivation in Paksong, the major
coffee growing district, between 1995 and 1999 was at
the expense of the protected area. By 1997 a land and
forest allocation drive by the government had
formalized the boundaries for all villages adjacent to
or near DHS. This campaign also marked the
beginning of formal land-use planning and control by
government through province, district and village
organizations. However, the allocation failed to assign
privileges and responsibilities for sections of the pro-
tected area to individual villages. It thus left DHS
without even the protection of village custodianship
and protected area staff were unable to fill the
vacuum. Anyone in search of land with a minimum of
fuss and expense turned to the protected area.
The risk associated with encroachment was
taken as slight compared to the inconvenience of
negotiating with villages or the cost of buying land.
Land in the protected area also offered the option of
clearing prime forest. Coffee planting becomes profit-
able more rapdly on cleared mature forest than on
secondary forest, with a break-even point of just 3 to
4 years, as opposed to 5 or 6. For the smallholder
without capital to tide them over, the clearing of
secondary forest is not an attractive proposition.
The management response
The beginning of management in DHS coincided with
a government drive against illegal clearing and
logging in the uplands. While central government
supported the expansion of cash crop agriculture it
also clearly asserted that protected areas and prime
natural forest were not the place to do it. In March
1996 more than 300 persons were found guilty of the
illegal clearing of 216 ha of forest and fined the
human populations, protected areas increasingly
becoming accessible fragments of natural habitat,
the use of modern hunting technologies such as
firearms and wire snares, and all of these
compounded by vastly increased commercialization
of hunting for pets, meat, skins, pelts, parts for
traditional medicines, and anything else that will
fetch a price (Robinson & Bennett, 2000al. Political
instability and warfare can be further elements
driving up hunting rates iHart, 2002|.
The problem is especially acute in tropical
forests because of their very low productivity for
large vertebrates. A tropical forest sustainably
produces about 150 kg/km^ of vertebrate biomass
per year (Robinson & Bennett, 2000bl, yet annual
hunting rates in many tropical forest reserves
are much higher than this: about 200 kg/km^ in
parts of the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, the Democratic
Republic of Congo (Hart, 20001, 349 kg/km2 in
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve, Kenya (FitzGibbon
et al., 20001, and 701 kg/km^ in Menembonembo
Nature Reserve. Sulawesi. Indonesia. This is
leading to population declines (Robinson & Bennett,
2000al. and local (Peres, 2000; Maisels et ai, 2001)
and even global (Gates et al., 20001 extinctions.
This has a wider impact on the ecology of the
protected areas. Animals hunted preferentially in
such forests are the large vertebrates, which
82
Threats to protected areas
equivalent of about US$ 6A,000.
A land claims registration was initiated by the
DHS management in 1996 to provide ttie basis of a
problem-solving strategy, which was submitted to
province and district level decision-mal<ers in 1997.
The fact that a considerable proportion of coffee plots
and other types of cultivation predated the protected
area, massive vested interest; a commitment to part-
icipatory management and the lacl< of enforcement
capacity precluded a purely law and order approach.
Under the strategy, agriculture in the protected
area would be legalized on the majority of established
plots while a minority of plot owners would have to
vacate theirs. Plot abandonment was advocated only
when it fell inside a proposed core zone. Elsewhere,
cultivation could continue on a permit system at
present levels and, in the longer term, be phased out
or regularized through excision from the protected
area. It was also proposed that permit holders
contribute to a fund to implement and enforce the
permit system. This approach reduced the area slated
for abandonment to manageable proportions and
promised to generate funds for implementation.
The abandonment of plots and the issue of
permits in priority sectors was a work plan target
from mid-1998 onwards. While seemingly inching
closer to action, by the end of 1999 not a single plot
had been abandoned nor had a single cultivation
permit been issued. It had become clear that
management was probing the very limits of district
and province capacity to control land use and/or
that vested interests were simply too strong.
Management was reduced to documenting the
situation on the ground and outlining options for
maximum conservation benefits from inevitable
boundary adjustments.
A boundary adjustment for the area of Dong Hua
Sao from 1100 km^ to to 910 km^ was recommended
in the Protected Area Status Report of 1995 based on
SPOT satellite images dated 1990 or earlier In mid
1 999. another boundary revision proposal was made,
based on observations by field patrols, aerial
inspection, and 1995 aerial photos of the upland
sections. The information on which boundary
recommendations were made had always been dated
and incomplete until February 2000 when high
resolution IKONOS satellite data were obtained. Using
GIS software, these data were reanalysed, recent
clearings identified and the area of all clrearings
calculated. The results suggested that further excis-
ions to 816 km2 may be unavoidable, further eroding
the conservation values of the area.
typically play vital roles as browsers, pollinators,
and dispersers (Redford, 19921; 75 percent of the
plant species in African rain forests depend on
animals for seed dispersal (White, 20011. Loss of
wildlife is also detrimental to people who live in
or near protected areas who depend on hunting for
their subsistence, either from hunting inside the
reserve, or in the "sinks" surrounding the
protected "source". Those who suffer most when
the resource goes are the marginalized forest
peoples who have few or no alternatives (Robinson
& Bennett, 20021. Efforts to alleviate the problem
can back-fire and exacerbate the problem if they
result in increased access to the reserve and
increased human populations around it, e.g.
through badly planned integrated conservation
and development projects IICDPsl (Dates, 1995;
19991, or inappropriate ecotourism developments
(Wildlife Conservation Society & Sarawak Forest
Department, 19961. Given the low management
capacity in protected areas across much of the
tropics, often the only protection for wildlife lies in
the inaccessibility of these areas.
The problems and issues are complex, so
solutions must be multifaceted, and individually
tailored to take account of the unique local
biological, cultural, socioeconomic, and political
conditions (van Schaik ef ai, 20021. Core elements
83
The world's protected areas
Mining often poses tlie
first threat to natural
ecosystems and can be
responsible for major
changes to ecology.
¥-'
i
include education, enforcement, and, as necessary,
development of sustainable sources of income and
nutrition for local communities. Education must be
at many levels, from senior land planners to local
communities. Enforcement can be by a government
agency (Karanth, 20021, non-governmental
agencies, the private sector (van Schail< etal., 20021,
or local communities empowered or working witfi
partners to exclude outsiders iBodmer & Puertas,
20001. Buffer zones that control hunters going into
reserves and wildlife products coming out can also
be highly effective (e.g. Ell<an, 20001.
Overfishing
A large proportion of marine and inland water
protected areas are affected by overfishing.
Remarkably few have extensive fishing regulations,
and strict "no-take" protection is provided in only a
small fraction of sites. Overfishing may thus be
perfectly legal within many sites. Fishing regula-
tions, where they do exist, can be hard to enforce.
Illegal fishing may take place in remote areas,
where enforcement is difficult and expensive, while
at smaller scales reluctance by local communities
to accept regulations can create problems.
Aside from the direct impacts of the
excessive removal of aquatic species, many fishing
methods are destructive and wasteful to the wider
environment. Benthic trawling has destroyed vast
areas of continental shelf habitat. Coral reef areas
have been plagued by blast-fishing where the use of
explosives destroys years of coral growth for a one-
off catch of all species in an area. Poison-fishing
has similar indiscriminate impacts in other areas.
Bycatch (which may be of no commercial value)
makes up a substantial proportion of many
fisheries, and because it is not directly targeted,
may also not be covered by legal regimes of fishing
in protected areas: turtles, sharks, seabirds and
other species are regularly killed in nets and on
longlines. Lost fishing gear continues to snag and
catch species, perhaps for many years, and can drift
into protected areas.
Minerals
Non-renewable mineral deposits and hydrocarbon
reserves are found in all of the world's terrestrial
and marine biomes. Mining often poses the first
threat to natural ecosystems and can be
responsible for m^ajor changes to ecology through
84
Threats to protected areas
its direct impacts, pollution, and its role in
promoting unplanned and uncontrolled develop-
ment (Finger, 1999; Brandon, Redford & Sanderson,
19981. The search for new resources has continued
to expand into increasingly remote regions,
including many sensitive environments rich in bio-
diversity or harboring threatened species. It has
been suggested, for example, that by 2007 more
than 80 percent of new oilfield development will
take place in the tropics, where most of the
world's biodiversity is concentrated (Conservation
International, 1997).
There are environmental and social impacts at
each stage of the mining process. The trends toward
open-pit mining and low-grade ores has increased
tailings or waste products, including crushed rock,
cyanide (in gold and silver mines), radioactive
waste (in uranium mines), sulfuric acid, and heavy
metals. Similarly, the wide-ranging methods of
extraction of fossil fuels, on land and underwater,
and the high risks of pollution during transport, use,
and disposal mean that a very wide range of
impacts is possible.
Many of the proposed locations for new or
expanded natural resource extraction are in,
or adjacent to, protected areas. Conflicts clearly
arise between extractive activities and the need to
maintain biodiversity values. As the demand for
mineral resources continues to rise, and as existing
reserves become exhausted, it seems unlikely that
natural resource extraction can be kept out of all
protected areas. Increasingly, however, there have
been moves to engage with extractive industry, to
develop a dialogue and establish agreements and
protocols to restrict activities, mitigate damage, and
restore exploited areas. While conflicts will doubt-
less continue in some areas, the extractive industry
is increasingly being treated as a key stakeholder
with interests in protected areas.
To date it has been impossible to fully gauge
the true scale of these impacts on the world's
thousands of individual protected areas. However,
at an international level, the impacts on World
Heritage sites have been well documented
(Philips, 2001). Those affected by mining in recent
years include: Kakadu National Park (Australia),
Mt Nimba iGuinea/Cote d'lvoire], Kamchatka
National Park (Russian Federation], and Lorentz
National Park (Indonesia] [Rossler, 2000; Philips,
2000). These sites are among the most highly
valued protected areas in the world in terms of
their universal biodiversity value. If these most
prized of sites suffer pressures from extractive
industry activities it must be assumed that the
problems of mining relative to other national and
international protected areas (such as Wetlands of
International Importance (Ramsar sites] and/or
UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserves (MAB
reserves] occur widely.
lUCN Amman Recommendation - "go and no-go
areas"
Frequently, national legislation determines
whether natural resource extraction activities are
permitted within protected areas or their buffer
zones. Mining may be prohibited within many
protected areas in some countries but acceptable
in others. Concern about mining within protected
areas persuaded lUCN members to propose a
recommendation at the 2000 World Conservation
Congress in Amman that, among other things,
governments ban mining in Category l-IV
protected areas (Dudley & Stolton, 2002).
Significant efforts by lUCN over the previous four
years or so led to the adoption of the Amman
Recommendation in 2000. Resolution 2.82, on the
protection and conservation of biological diversity
of protected areas from the negative impacts of
mining and exploration, identifies that mining
should not take place in lUCN Categories l-IV
protected areas and only under strict conditions in
Categories V and VI. This Declaration and the work
Volunteers at Cotwall
End Local Nature
Reserve, Dudley,
clearing Japanese
Knotweed [Fallopia
japonica), an invasive
alien species in the
United Kingdom.
85
The world's protected areas
BOX 3.2: WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
One of the tools available to the World Heritage
Committee to support States Parties to the World
Heritage Convention (see Chapter 11 is the "List of
World Heritage in Danger". Frequently dubbed as the
"Danger List", it is a "list of the property appearing in
the World Heritage List for the conservation of which
major operations are necessary and for which
assistance has been requested under the Convention"
(Article 1 1 . paragraph A of the Convention).
In early 2006 there were 13 natural sites in the
"Danger List" in 9 countries, including one
transboundary site (Mount Nimba in Cote d'lvoire and
Guinea). Four of the these countries, incorporating
nine sites, were affected by armed conflicts. The
remainder were threatened by a range of factors,
including water diversion, poaching, illegal
settlements, unsustainable tourism and invasive
species. A number of sites have recently been
removed from the list, including Djoudj Bird
Sanctuary in Senegal and Ichkeul National Parl< in
Tunisia, as a result of improved management.
The why and how of the Committee's decisions to
place sites on the "Danger List" have been subjects of
heated debate in recent years. States Parties to the
Convention and other stakeholders in World Heritage
conservation have often taken diametrically opposite
views on whether or not the Committee has the legal
authority to declare a site to be "in Danger" when the
State Party does not agree, or when it explicitly
opposes the Committee's decision on the matter A
precedent was set as early as in 1992, when the
Committee placed several sites on the "Danger List"
without the explicit agreement of the States Parties
concerned. Since 1999 the Committee undertook a
complete revision of the Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
While this presented an opportunity, and provoked
considerable debate, the clauses pertaining to this
issue were left unchanged in the Guidelines and the
Committee's option to place a site any time in the
"Danger List " remains open.
In October 1996, when a World Heritage
workshop was convened at lUCN's First World
Conservation Congress in MontreaL Canada, the
Committee was deliberating on the need to declare
Ecuador's Galapagos National Park, a flagship World
Heritage site, as a "Danger site". At that workshop a
site-representative insisted that Galapagos is like any
other protected area in a less developed country
facing a range of threats; immigration due to
economic opportunities offered by a booming tourist
industry, introduction of alien species, illegal and
unsustainable fisheries etc. But his management's
commitment to mitigate those threats was quite
deliberate and hence he maintained that Galapagos
did not deserve to be declared as a site In Danger.
Questions regarding the merits and justifiability
of the inclusion of a site in the List of World Heritage
in Danger have been raised in many other cases such
as: Yellowstone (USA); Simen (Ethiopia); Kakadu
(Australia) and El Viscaino (Mexico), The Committee,
in response to specific actions taken by the respective
States Parties, decided against including Galapagos,
Kakadu and El Viscaino in the "Danger List".
Yellowstone was included in the List with the consent
of the State Party In the case of Simen, Ethiopia, the
Amhara Regional authorities, who assumed
responsibility tor its management following
decentralization of administration from Addis Ababa
in 1996, objected to the Committee's decision
although authorities in Addis Ababa did not take a
strong view on the matter. However, difference of
proceeding from it has shaped the development of
many of the initiatives described, their proposed
aims, and delivered outputs.
Following the Amman Recommendation, no
single perspective on conservation and extractive
industry Impacts was agreed (Philips, 2001).
However a broad consensus has started to emerge
and protected areas are beginning to be recog -
nized by the extractive industry as "sensitive
areas". A number of extractive industry multi -
nationals are starting to identify and screen where
their existing operations are in relation to current
protected areas and identify where proposed
extractive industry operations may impact
protected areas (BP, 2003). Some companies are
making firm commitments not to undertake
operations in international protected areas such
as World Heritage sites or lUCN Management
Category l-IV protected areas.
In addition, a number of companies have
begun to formulate biodiversity policies and intro-
duce innovative operating management strategies
86
Threats to protected areas
opinion between the Committee's position on the
site's "in Danger" status and that of IRegional
authorities closest to the site slowed communications
between the World Heritage Centre and site-
management on conservation problems and
mitigation actions needed to restore the outstanding
universal values of Simen.
In October 2000, the role of the World Heritage in
Danger Listing in promoting international co-
operation for the conservation of World Natural
Heritage became the subject of another workshop at
lUCN's Second World Conservation Congress in
Amman, Jordan. There a representative from the
Amhara Region of Ethiopia re-iterated his displeasure
on the lack of consultation and inadequate verification
of information provided by consultant missions that
seem to have led to the Committee's declaration of
Simen as a site "in Danger". Discussions during that
workshop however, convinced the Amhara auth-
orities, as well as representatives of other natural
World Heritage in Danger, that the intentions of the
Committee in declaring sites to be "in Danger"" was to
call for international action to conserve the site and
remove prevailing threats to their integrity. Soon after
the workshop a World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission
was able to visit Simen and establish a rehabilitation
program including benchmarks and indicators for
measuring progress and determining the time in the
future for removing Simen from the List of World
Heritage in Danger
Participants at the Amman workshop invited
States Parties, World Heritage Centre and lUCN to
reflect on the conditions under which threats to out-
standing universal values of sites could rise to levels
that may justify the declaration of a site as World
Heritage in Danger. A monitoring regime for con-
tinuous threats-analysis and threats-status assess-
ment, including triggers that signify changes in
threat-levels meriting the declaration of the site as
World Heritage in Danger, needs to be part of the
management of any area nominated for World
Heritage designation. They also felt that the
Committee must promote steps to make systematic
monitoring regimes an integral part of World
Heritage area management practice and invited the
Committee to describe in sufficient detail, at the time
when it decides to include a site in the List of World
Heritage in Danger, the reasons for the listing along
with practical actions to be taken, guidelines for
implementing the actions and benchmarks for
measuring progress.
International debates surrounding the possible
"Danger Listing" of Galapagos, El Viscaino,
Yellowstone and other sites have improved responses
of the global conservation community and donors to
support actions to conserve sites "in Danger". In
1999, the UN Foundation lUNFI targeted World
Heritage sites containing biodiversity values of global
significance as priorities for grant-aid. Since then
several World Natural Heritage sites included at one
time or another in the "Danger List" have received
financial support
There is still an urgent need to communicate the
meaning and the value of "Danger Listing" to key
partners, i.e. governments, NGOs, site-staff, local
communities, private sector, donors and foundations
etc. Special emphasis in any such campaign should
be placed on removing the perception that the
Committees interest in monitoring the state of
conservation of World Heritage sites is an attempt
to police the heritage conservation performance of
less developed countries but rather to foster
international co-operation to protect and effectively
conserve World Heritage.
and design principles and criteria. These are often
in addition to existing company efforts in bio-
diversity research and conservation relative to
their operations. Whilst encouraging, such actions
as these still remain restricted to a small selection
of major multinationals.
The issue of "no-go" for oil, gas, and mineral
mining activities in protected areas will remain a
key area of debate between extractive industry and
conservation stakeholders. Indeed, it was keenly
discussed at the World Parks Congress, Durban,
South Africa, in 2003. Areas of divergence remain
within and between industry and conservation
groups. However, several proposals on how to
move forward continue to be presented. The
development and availability of decision-making
frameworks and mechanisms, "best practice"
guidelines, and metrics that consider protected
areas may well assist with the more effective
consideration of the relative costs and benefits of
extraction at the planning stage. There remains a
need tor their continued development, as well as
87
The world's protected areas
In the Galapagos
National Park goats,
pigs, dogs, cats, rats,
and many other species
have altered ecosystem
characteristics and
contributed to the
extinction of numerous
endemic species.
an Improved understanding and more widely
available mechanisms of interpreting and applying
lUCN Protected Area Management Categories.
ALIEN SPECIES
In the last few hundred years humans have greatly
accelerated the rates and patterns of movements of
a wide range of species. Dramatic increases in
human migration, travel, and trade have begun to
mix flora and fauna at the global level, across
natural geographical barriers such as mountains,
oceans, deserts, and rivers. In some cases, the
barriers themselves have been removed with the
building of canals or bridges. Although many
introductions have been accidental, bringing so-
called "silent invaders", there are also many cases
of deliberate introductions of species, "purposeful
invaders", including crops and livestock, but also
wild species, to support new settlements or to
"enhance" natural environments. In recent decades
the constant trickle of species from one place to
another has become a flood, following the boom in
international trade and travel. It is estimated that at
any given moment some 10 000 different species
are being transported between biogeographic
regions in ballast water tanks alone (Carlton, 19991.
Only a proportion of species that are
translocated from their natural habitats become
established elsewhere - so-called alien species,
and only a proportion of alien species become
sufficiently abundant to have a major impact on
the ecosystems in which they find themselves.
Those that do, however, can be extremely dam-
aging, to the extent that invasive alien species are
now recognized to be one of the major threats
to global biological diversity as well as a driving
force behind declining quality of human life in
many places. While larger species often receive
attention, smaller or more hidden species, partic-
ularly various kinds of pathogen, can be equally or
more destructive.
Islands have often been particularly sus-
ceptible to the impacts of alien and invasive species.
Remote islands are often home to endemic species.
Ivlany are also used by seabirds as nesting colonies.
Without natural predators, characteristics such as
flightlessness have developed among birds, and
species have not developed adequate defense
responses to cope with an invasion of predators,
grazers, or other competitors. In the Galapagos
National Park goats, pigs, dogs, cats, rats, and
other species have altered ecosystem charact-
eristics and driven endemic species, including
several endemic tortoise species, to extinction
88
Threats to protected areas
(Schotield, 1989; Mauchamp, 1997). Feral pigs also
threaten endemic species by eating the eggs of
ground-nesting birds, giant tortoises, and sea
turtles. In the 1970s, it was observed that a single
pair of pigs destroyed 23 tortoise nests on Santa
Cruz Island over a one-month period.
In the Seychelles, endemic birds and reptiles
were once widespread across the islands. The
impact of rats, mice, and cats have decimated the
bird populations. Today the five remaining rat-free
islands of the Seychelles are all protected areas,
and provide a critical resource for the survival of
several species. Similarly, nesting seabirds have
proved highly susceptible, and rat-free islands
remain some of the only major breeding grounds for
petrels, terns, and boobies in all oceans. The 11
small rat-free islands of the British Indian Ocean
Territory have all recently been declared protected
areas and are used by up to 200 000 pairs of
breeding seabirds, whereas, by contrast, the
remaining rat-infested islands are largely devoid of
nesting birds. The fire tree or fayatree Myrica faya
has increased within Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park from one tree in 1 967 to cover 1 5 900 hectares,
reducing the available space for the many endemic
species that once thrived in this environment
(Camrath et at., 20011. The number of naturalized
exotic plants species 12 0711 in New Zealand now
exceeds the number of native vascular plants
12 0551 IWilliams & West, 20001.
Four major management options are available
for the prevention or control of alien species;
Prevention - legal measures, combined with
intensive policing, may help to prevent many
introductions. The the International Maritime
Organization IIMOl has developed the International
Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments to minimize the
transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens. Many countries and sub-national
jurisdictions had unilaterally developed or are
developing national or local legislation. These
include Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, New
Zealand, the USA, various individual states within
the USA, and various individual ports around the
world, such as Buenos Aires in Argentina, Scapa
Flow In Scotland, and Vancouver in Canada IGlobal
Ballast Water Management Programme, 20051. The
International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments
will both harmonize and improve controls at a
global level.
In order to prevent future invasion of alien
species into protected areas, public education is
critical. Tourists and visitors are frequently unaware
of laws and regulations to prevent introductions of
alien species, or of the serious biological harm such
species can create. In the last decade, successful
public awareness campaigns on native biodiversity
have been conducted in New Zealand.
Accurate information to support identifying
and highlighting problem species can be very
valuable. Databases of invasive alien species with
information on distribution, pathways, and manage-
ment options are proving helpful for prevention; the
global database produced by the Global Invasive
Species Programme is one such instrument.
Early detection - can be a critical tool
leading to action. When the marine algae
Caulerpa taxifoUa was first observed in the
Mediterranean, close to the marine aquarium in
Monaco, in 1984, it covered only a single square
meter. Unfortunately nothing was done, and there
are now well over 100 separate colonies in six
different Mediterranean countries, and the
species is causing local devastation to native
species as well as to fisheries and the diving
industry. Identifying alien species in the early
stages of establishment is the most economically
efficient method to prevent potential threats.
Eradication - is an option in certain circum-
stances, notably before an invasion has become too
large, or on small islands. Eradication is the
removal of invasive species from the invaded place
or a reduction of their density below sustainable
levels. New Zealand, in particular, has led the world
in developing techniques for the successful removal
from small islands of alien species such as the
house mouse Mus muscuius, black rat Rattus
rattus. Norway rat Rattus norvegicus. and European
rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus. In mid-1997 the pig
eradication program on Santiago island in the
Galapagos National Park, Ecuador, was given
priority status. In May 2002 Santiago Island was
declared pig free - the first time in at least 127
years, and the largest ever island from which an
established pig population was successfully
eradicated (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 20051.
In Australia, rapid detection (within six
monthsl, isolation, and intensive chemical
treatment led to the successful control of an out-
break of black striped mussel in Darwin in 1999.
In California, a sabellid worm Terebrasabella
heterouncinata. which encrusts native gastropod
89
The world's protected areas
mollusks, reducing their growth rates and weak-
ening their shells, was introduced in the 1980s.
Manual removal of infested shells and of other
susceptible individuals was undertaken by large
numbers of volunteers Isome 1.6 million mollusks
were removed from the waters around the
infestation). It is believed that the large reduction in
density of available hosts led to the demise of the
invader Following the demise, the area was relat-
ively rapidly repopulated by gastropod mollusks
from adjacent areas (Myers et al., 20001.
Control - is the only remaining option for many
invasive species. If numbers can be kept sufficiently
low and certain areas can be kept clear, then native
species and ecosystems can continue to function.
Efforts to eradicate or control invasive alien
species include mechanical removal (tree felling,
hunting, and trapping], the use of chemical
controls (poisons, herbicides, etc.], and the use of
biological controls. There are problems and risks,
particularly associated with the use of chemical
and biological controls. The release, for example,
of cats to control rats has invariably led to a wider
suite of problems from two invasive aliens rather
than one. In the Pacific, the deliberate introduction
of the predatory snail Euglandina rosea, often
known as the rosy wolf snail, to control feral
populations of the giant African land snaAAchatina
fuUca had little impact on the latter, but led to the
extinction of many endemic partulid snails
{Partula and Samoana spp.j, particularly in French
Polynesia (Civeyrel & Simberloff, 1996; Murray et
al., 19881. Chemical controls can have con-
siderable success leg. the use of the poison 1080
to control populations of Red foxes Vulpes vulpes
and other species in Western Australia], but unless
carefully used may have undesirable impacts on
non-target species.
Growing awareness of the problems of
invasive aliens has led to the establishment of a
number of groups, including the lUCN Invasive
Species Specialist Group and the Global Invasive
Species Programme (GISP), coordinated by the
Scientific Committee on Problems of the
Environment (SCOPE], in collaboration with lUCN,
and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Inter-
national ICAB International]. The problems of
invasive alien species are also highlighted within
the Convention on Biological Diversity 11992] and
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (Montego Bay, 1982]. In addition, GISP's Global
Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (2001) lists a
further A2 international conventions, resolutions,
and agreements which address or mention alien
invasive species.
IMPACTS FROM BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES
Many of the most fundamental threats come from
outside protected area boundaries, and cannot be
tackled effectively by management choices made
within the protected area or its buffer zones. These
can range from relatively local issues, such as
changes to the hydrology of a watershed, through to
national or global issues such as water and air
pollution, and climate change.
Management of such problems inevitably
relies on often-distant political decisions, and
protected area managers have, until recently, done
little more than add their voices to those calling for
better pollution control or rational watershed
management. However, as the reality of issues such
as climate change becomes increasingly accepted,
managers are recognizing that they must consider
potential impacts in the design and management of
protected areas.
Dams and drainage
Freshwater protected areas are particularly
vulnerable to impacts originating elsewhere in the
catchment, sometimes far distant from the area
itself and quite possibly in a different country. For
example, the environmental and social impacts of
large-scale hydroelectric schemes have received
increasing attention, with critics arguing that their
costs outweigh the potential benefits. Large dams
are identified as causing major social upheaval
through displacement of human communities,
environmental damage by diverting rivers and
flooding land, and more generally, impacts to the
hydrological cycle and to local climate patterns
(World Commission on Dams, 2000]. Over half of the
world's large river systems are affected by dams,
including the eight most biogeographically diverse
(Nilsson et al 2005] and dams have affected a
number of important protected areas IGujja &
Pernn, 1999].
Because they affect protected areas or
potential protected areas downstream, sometimes
creating dramatic changes in ecology, dams are
seen as a significant threat. Although the large
reservoirs associated with dams can themselves
create important habitats for waterfowl and fish, the
constantly fluctuating levels make it difficult for
shoreline species to survive, simplifying and
90
Threats to protected areas
Dam construction,
either outside or wittiin
protected areas, can
have significant short
and long term impacts
on protected areas.
limiting biodiversity. By flooding existing wetlands.
dams can dramatically reduce the environmental
richness of a particular area. In India, Keoladeo
National Park and World Heritage Site, although
once a flood-prone area, now faces drought
following the construction of the Panchna Dam in
the catchment (Brar, 19961. However, in some
instances, dams can support the establishment and
long-term maintenance of protected areas that
form their catchments, as is the case with Canaima
National Park and World Heritage Site in Venezuela,
Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage
Site in Australia and Nakai-Nam Theun National
Protected Area in Lao PDR.
Marine and freshwater pollution
Marine and freshwater protected areas are also
susceptible to water-borne pollution arising from
beyond their boundaries. This includes both
occasional pollution events that destroy large
numbers of plants and animals in a short time and
chronic pollution that gradually degrades and imp-
overishes the biodiversity. A number of important
pollutants include concentrated nutrients, pest-
icides, and trace metals and other toxic chemicals.
Concentrated nutrients cause excessive algal
growth and, when the algae die and decay.
shortages of oxygen: a process known as eutrophic-
ation. Key pollutants are sewage, soluble fertilizers,
and pulp mill effluent. For example, the discharge
of wastewater from paper mills and sugar plants
into East Dongting Lake has seriously polluted the
ecosystem in Dongdongtinghu Nature Reserve in
China IChen&Yan, 19961.
Pesticides and other biocides that have
leached or drifted from their point of application -
typically agricultural land, but also as a result of
urban pest controls and even aquaculture - can
cause pollution in protected areas far away.
Persistent pesticides such as those based on
organochlorines are particularly dangerous. The
latter are now found in high concentrations in the
body fat of marine mammals thousands of kilo -
meters from where they were used (Johnston &
McRea, 19921. Some freshwater species are
extremely sensitive to pesticides IManson, 19961.
The Wadden Sea Trilateral Conservation Area,
which straddles Denmark, Germany, and the
Netherlands, is currently being polluted by tribu-
tyltin (TBTj and pesticides. There now is increasing
evidence that some pesticides are hampering the
grazing ability of zooplankton, and herbicides are
interfering with the photosynthesis of phyto-
plankton lEnemark, WesemiJller & Gerdiken, 1 9981.
91
The world's protected areas
Climate change is
believed to be affecting
food supplies for polar
bears iUrsus maritimus]
in the Arctic.
Trace metals and other persistent toxic
chemicals enter water systems from mining
operations, factories, domestic waste, or from
shipping and boat maintenance. In Lake Nakuru
National Park in Kenya, settlement and devel-
opment of industry around the lake has increased
levels of organic and chemical pollutants,
especially oil and heavy metals, plus increased
sewage discharges (Stolton, Dudley & Rowell,
19971. In April 1998, a tailings dam burst at the Los
Frailes mine in Spain, spilling 5 million m^ of toxic
waste into rivers near the Dohana National Park
and World Heritage Site. The resulting floods
affected 5 000-7 000 hectares of farmland and
marsh, destroyed bird habitats, and killed large
numbers of fish (Carey, Dudley & Stolton, 2000).
Atmospheric pollution
Atmospheric pollution is an important threat to
both terrestrial and marine protected areas,
particularly in the more developed countries,
including industrialized parts of Europe, North
America, and Asia. One of the most detailed surveys
to date assessed the impacts on wildlife through a
literature survey, which identified effects on 1 300
species, including 11 mammals, 29 birds, 10
amphibians, 398 higher plants, 305 fungi, 238
lichens, and 65 invertebrates. The results showed
that among plants alone more than 100 species
have been extirpated, sometimes from quite large
areas, due to air pollution in the UK (Tickle, 19961.
Protected areas have tended to be established on
land that is less suitable for agriculture or other
commercial uses and thus often on acidic or base-
poor soils, where the effects of acidification are
generally more acute.
Connected ecosystems
Many mobile animal species spend a part of
their lives outside protected areas. These include
migratory species, but also others which depend on
different areas at different phases in their life
history, such as pelagic fish species, that come into
coastal channels or into mangrove forests to breed.
In some cases the daily movements of species may
take them in and out of protected areas. In all these
cases, the adjacent protected area becomes
irrelevant, and legitimate activities such as hunting
and fishing, or the destruction of a critical habitat,
can severely reduce the numbers of a species able
to return to, or to utilize, a protected area. This in
turn may undermine the entire raison d'etre of a
site, and even undermine its ecological functioning.
The solution to such problems can only be derived
from the design of more holistic measures, such as
the establishment of protected area networks and
migratory corridors (often international), or other
legal protection regimes such as seasonal or
species-based hunting restrictions outside of
protected areas.
CLIMATE CHANGE
During the course of the 20th century, the average
surface temperature (combining surface air
temperature over land and sea) across the planet
increased by 0.6°C. The rate of change is accel-
erating: ten of the eleven warmest years since acc-
urate records began in 850 have been since 1995
with 1998 almost certainly the single warmest year
in the past millennium. The two second warmest
years on record have both been since then (2003 and
2005). Since the 1960s there has been an estimated
1 percent decrease in the extent of snow cover and
a two-week decrease in the average duration of
snow and ice cover (northern hemisphere). The
extent of Arctic sea ice has declined by 10-15
percent since the 1950s, with a 40 percent decline in
sea ice thickness during the late summer/early
autumn. Sea levels have risen during this period.
Changes around the UK, when adjusted for isostatic
rebound, vary from 0.3 mm/year to 1 .8 mm/yean
92
Threats to protected areas
Such changes have already occurred, and
have been accurately measured. There Is little
doubt about their veracity. They tally closely with
expected changes predicted from the observations
of atmospheric change. Most notable has been a
31 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the
start of the industrial revolution 117501. This is
largely linked to the burning of fossil fuels, with a
further 25 percent coming mainly from land-use
change and specially from deforestation. Other
greenhouse gases , including methane and nitrous
oxide, have also increased dramatically. There is
good evidence that these gases have not existed in
these concentrations in the global atmosphere for
at least A20 000 years, and probably not for 20
million years. With these atmospheric changes
there are also the beginnings of changes in ocean
chemistry - a higher partial pressure of CO2 has
already led to a 0.1 unit reduction in the pH of
ocean surface waters.
Models have been built to simulate future
change in atmospheric conditions, taking into
account anthropogenic and natural forcing. The
best available models predict temperature rises in
the range 1.-4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100.
Such figures are global averages. They will be
considerably higher over larger land areas than
over the ocean. They will also be more extreme at
higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Over
the same period sea levels are projected to rise
between 9 and 88 centimeters. Other changes are
predicted, but with lower reliability. These include
higher precipitation in northern latitudes and the
Antarctic over the winter, but more variable
changes at lower latitudes, with greater inter-
annual variation. Changes in the extent, strength,
and distribution of extreme events such as
droughts, forest fires, floods, and tropical storms
are difficult to predict. Similarly, although some
models predict changes to some of the main ocean
circulation patterns (with potentially massive
regional climatic impacts], most predict gradual
shifts rather than rapid cessation or reversal.
Innpacts on biodiversity and protected areas
Some impacts of climate change have already been
widely observed. In Europe, studies showed an
increase in the growing season of some 11 days
between 1959 and 1996. Of a sample of 35 butterfly
species in Europe, about two thirds were found to
have shifted their ranges northwards by distances
of 35-340 kilometers during the 20th century.
Changes in the incidences of pests and diseases
have also been observed. The likely impacts of
global climate change on forests are still being
debated, but there seems to be general consensus
that the boreal coniferous forests are particularly
vulnerable to both range restrictions and increasing
fire frequency. Another forest type that is especially
vulnerable to climate change is tropical montane
cloud forest, which depends upon clouds to supply it
with atmospheric moisture. Research has shown
that the mean cloud base is moving upwards on
tropical mountains as a result of climatic shifts. The
forest species are not able to migrate at a com-
parable rate and. in any case, range shifts will be
limited by the land area existing at higher
elevations. Local extinctions in cloud forest
amphibians, including the Costa Rican golden toad
Bufo periglenes, not recorded since 1989, have been
attributed to climatic fluctuations that may be
linked to long-term global climate change (Pounds
etai. 19991.
Future ecosystem changes are likely to be far
more extreme, and also more complex, as climate
change accelerates. In many cases there are likely
to be synergistic responses where the impacts of
multifaceted change may be different from any
apparent "sum of the parts".
Protected areas represent static surfaces that
are increasingly hemmed in by human land uses,
like islands. Quite aside from the problems of small
or isolated populations, such islands are. to varying
degrees, closed off from the sorts of dynamic
responses that may be required for ecosystem
survival in the face of changing climates. Small
fragments also lack the resilience that comes from
the genetic diversity and broad spatial extent of
unimpacted ecosystems.
In a recent analysis. WWF (2003) categorized
the types of climate change impacts on protected
areas as:
Disappearance of Habitats and Ecosystems
This is clearly the most drastic of impacts for
protected areas, and one which is anticipated to
affect low-lying, coastal and marine areas,
principally coral reefs, mangroves and saltmarshes.
Indeed, these kinds of impacts are already being
recorded at a number of sites as a result of sea-
level rise, unseasonable flooding and increased sea
temperature. Examples include the Sundarbans
National Park and World Heritage Site, where an
estimated 75 km^ of mangroves has been lost to
93
The world's protected areas
Fires viewed from space
in the Blue Mountains
National Park,
Australia.
sea-level rise (although aggravated by deltaic
subsidence). In a worst-case scenario the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCCI pre -
diets that 75 percent of the mangroves will
disappear as a result of sea-level rise. As well as
the loss of biodiversity and natural heritage values,
it has been estimated that it would cost almost $300
million to construct 2 200 km of cyclone/ flood
embankments. A further annual cost of $6 million
would be required for maintenance to mitigate the
impacts of tropical storms (Dudley and Stolton,
20031. We have already seen, in December 200^, the
value of natural coastal ecosystems, especially
mangroves, in mitigating the impacts of the Asian
tsunami. Although the cause of tsunamis is
geological, the predicted increase in the frequency
and intensity of cyclonic storms and resulting sea
surge arising from climate change is likely to have
similar impacts on low-lying ecosystems and
human communities.
Catastrophic Long-Term Changes to Ecosystems
Even where ecosystems are not completely
eliminated, there are a range of impacts that may
cause major and irreversible damage. One of the
most alarming predictions is the complete loss of
summer ice in the Arctic within 50 years, with
potentially catastrophic impact on polar bears,
seals, and other species, as well as on indigenous
communities. Similarly, break-up of the Antarctic
ice sheet will impact on penguin populations. In
1998 it was reported that the Adelie Penguin
population had declined by 33 percent in the last 25
years as a result of reduced winter sea ice habitat.
More recently, we have seen satellite images of
major ice fractures in the Antarctic.
Coral bleaching events are now recorded with
increased frequency, but notably in 1998 when
tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest
on record. Climate change is postulated to be the
primary cause of steadily rising marine temp-
eratures, in concert with more frequent El Nino and
La Nina-type events. The death of coral reefs would
have a severe impact on the world's most valuable
protected coral reef ecosystems, such as the Great
Barrier Reef in Australia and the Aldabra Atoll in the
Seychelles. It would also affect the innumerable
reefs that provide subsistence and livelihoods for
island and coastal communities in the tropical
regions of the world.
A rise in water levels in estuaries and shallow
coastal areas will reduce the size and connectivity of
U
Threats to protected areas
small islands and protected areas ILal, Harasawa &
Murdiyarso, 20011. A study in tlie USA concluded
that over 11 000 linear km of protected coastline,
including 80 coastal protected areas, are at risk
from sea-level rise (Beavers. 20011.
Catastrophic Temporary Changes to Ecosystems
This includes the impacts of more frequent long-
term drought events on ecosystems and species.
especially vs/etlands, but also a wide range of other
ecosystems that already have a fine balance of
ecosystem dynamics and seasonal aridity. The con-
sequences of sustained droughts can result not only
in impacts associated with water deficits but also
the frequency of catastrophic fires that can
potentially change even fire-adapted ecosystems.
This occurred in Eastern Australia where wildfires
caused by lightning strikes following sustained
drought resulted in severe damage to alpine
vegetation in Kosciusko National Park where such
vegetation was already located at the edge of an
ecological range and susceptible to climate change.
The Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage
Site also suffered major damage from forest fires,
and water levels in the catchments protected within
the national park, which provide water to Sydney's i
million people, fell drastically.
The impacts on ecosystems that are less fire-
adapted are likely to be long lasting. The IPCC
predicts that the frequency of forest fires is likely to
increase in the coniferous forests of boreal Asia. We
have already seen the catastrophic impacts of
anthropogenic tires on the tropical forests of
Southeast Asia and the subsequent regional smoke
haze, causing major environmental and health
problems costing millions of dollars. Further
deforestation in the Amazon region is predicted to
result in less evapotranspiration and less rainfall in
dry periods, estimated to decrease average rainfall
by 32 percent (Lean e( a/., 19961. These examples
highlight the circular nature of climate change, as
humans continue to reinforce and worsen the root
causes of climate change through large-scale forest
clearance and burning.
It is predicted that changes in fire regimes in
Africa will impact on forest plant communities that
form centres of endemism, many of which contain
protected areas. More than 90 percent of world
antelope and gazelle species are concentrated in
Africa and it is predicted that climate change-
induced habitat alteration will alter the distribution
range of many of these (Desanker & Madadza,
20011. Considering that wild biodiversity forms an
important resource for African people, both con-
sumptive and non-consumptive, major changes in
the distribution and availability of key species could
further impact negatively on the economy and liveli-
hoods of societies in Africa.
Dramatic Changes to l-labitats and Ecosystems
These changes cover issues such as melting
montane ice caps and glaciers, and species shifts
to cooler latitudes and altitudes. There are now
stark examples of retreating glaciers, and
disappearing ice and snow cover on the mountains
of the world. For example, the snow and ice cap on
Mount Kilimanjaro has been in retreat for several
decades and is predicted to completely disappear
The southeastern side of
Kibo, the highest peak of
Kilimanjaro ItopI, and
(below) Kilimanjaro's
icecap in 1962 (yellow),
and 2000 (black outline).
95
The world's protected areas
The golden toad [Bufo
periglenes] in the
Monleverde cloud
forest, Costa Rica. It
has not been recorded
since 1989.
by 2020; it formed more than 1 1 000 years ago, but
tias decreased by 82 percent over the past century
(Thompson et al., 2002). Thus, some of the most
iconic protected naturat heritage places in the
world are lil<ely to undergo major transformation.
In many protected areas the values for which they
were established will alter or diminish as species
that are able to shift their range outside the
boundaries of established protected areas. The
extent of such shifts has been measured in some
areas. For example, in the European Alps global
warming is believed to be the cause for the up-
ward altitudinal movement of some plant species
by ^-A meters per decade and the loss of some
taxa restricted to high elevations, threatening the
values in areas such as the Swiss National Parl<
IWWF, 20031.
Responses
Efforts to slow and halt climate change are being
addressed by the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change and its protocols.
At the same time, there is an urgent need to
consider more practical responses to the ongoing
problem. Climate change will not cease even when
greenhouse gas emissions are halted. The impacts
of climate change will be great, and protected areas
will suffer particularly from these impacts. A
number of responses are being considered to
reduce the impacts. These can be considered under
three broad headings.
Avoidance
Certain aspects of climate change may be pre-
vented through direct physical intervention.
Examples of this include the building of barriers to
prevent flooding of adjacent sites by sea-level rise;
riverine management, including diversion or
irrigation to maintain stable conditions in wetland
areas. Other forms of impact avoidance might
include the removal of species that migrate into
sites, the control of pests that benefit from benign
climatic conditions, or the building of fire
management systems in the face of increasing
threats from fire.
Another means of avoiding impacts is to
prevent or remove the synergistic threats that might
be enhanced through a changing climate. By
minimizing other disturbances, such as alien
invasive species introductions or unnatural sources
of fire, the impacts of climate change may be
avoided, or at least delayed.
Alleviation
In other cases change may be unavoidable, but
direct measures may allow for the amelioration of
impacts, often taking action at a systematic level
rather than responding at individual sites. By 2050
many species are predicted to have changed their
ranges by tens of kilometers, or by hundreds of
meters in altitude. This may take them beyond the
natural boundaries of existing protected areas, or
into the boundaries of others.
One of the most important measures to deal
with such changes, which is now being addressed
by a number of protected area systems plans, is the
concept of biological corridors (discussed further in
Chapter 41. By ensuring connectivity between pro-
tected areas, the natural migration of species and
even entire ecosystems may be supported. Even if a
species is threatened by change in one site,
changing conditions may favor its survival at
another, while migration corridors will support its
movement to that new location over years or
perhaps decades.
Such knowledge should also be used in the
planning of individual new protected areas. Where
there is some idea of direction in climate change
trends, and hence in potential changes in species
range, it is logical to try to encompass a broad part
of key species ranges, over latitudinal, altitudinal, or
96
Threats to protected areas
other gradients. It may also be reasonable to look
for edge-of-range areas if these areas are likely to
become Increasingly hospitable to key species, or
even to produce potential future range maps to help
in system design.
There is quite good evidence that certain
species, notably long-lived sedentary species such
as trees, may not be able to migrate as fast as the
changing climatic conditions. Under certain
circumstances it may be considered necessary to
enhance natural migration to accommodate this,
by transporting tree species to new locations
where climatic conditions permit. lAlthough this
may sound like unacceptable interference, there is
good evidence that "natural" migration patterns
have often followed such rare "long jumps", but
that these same processes are today thwarted by
habitat fragmentation).
It is only a small step from this to consider the
creation of new habitats where natural migration
might not occur sufficiently quickly (e.g. islands).
Conservationists are also becoming engaged in the
current dialogues relating to carbon sequestration.
There are a number of schemes that are proposing
to create or to restore forest ecosystems as a
means of offsetting CO2 production. With proper
planning, such new habitats could provide a critical
benefit for biodiversity conservation.
Adjustment
Perhaps linked to the processes of alleviation are
the processes of adapting to change. It may be
necessary to "let go" of some key species or
habitats from protected areas under changing
conditions, allowing for drying out. flooding, and
emigration or immigration processes, and changing
management regimes appropriately. With sea-level
rise, it may be appropriate to allow flooding of
coastal habitats, but where possible efforts should
be made to support migration rather than a
squeezing of the coastal habitat zonation. It may
also be relevant to designate, or even to create,
areas of new habitat, and new protected areas, as
new patterns of climatic conditions evolve.
As with all aspects of protected areas
management, it is critical to monitor change,
including climatic parameters, the ecological
responses, and the impacts of management inter-
ventions in as many sites as possible. The transfer
of knowledge and information, including planning
tools and successes and failures in management
response, between sites will greatly improve
management efficiency in the face of changing
climates, and will reduce costs. The wider
application of models to develop predictive surfaces
and support management planning or network
design will enable an increase in pre-emptive
management responses.
These responses to climate change may
appear drastic. In many cases they will not be
needed for years or decades, while our own
systems for avoiding, alleviating, or adjusting may
have become far more sophisticated. It will be
necessary, in all cases, to proceed carefully -
interference with natural processes can lead to
greater problems.
Climate change is bringing into focus some of
the key problems of reliance on protected areas as
the main tool for in situ biodiversity conservation,
most notably those associated with trying to
maintain small isolated populations in a
"wilderness" of agricultural, degraded, or urban
landscapes. Discussions about avoiding or miti-
gating the impacts, or even of adapting, are some-
what belittled by the sheer magnitude of the
problems, but there is little choice. Climate change
will doubtless claim many victims in the efforts to
preserve natural landscapes. It will be essential to
keep up the pressure to halt greenhouse gas
emissions, but immediate action may also need to
be considered in many sites.
97
The world's protected areas
Chapter U
Protected areas in the wider context
Contributors. M. Lockwood and G. Worboys: Kaa-lya del Gran Ctiaco National Parl<: M. Painter: Species conservation
and traditional resource ownership. Yadua Taba. 0. Watling; Private protected areas: M. Spalding and £ Carter.
International trends in protected area governance: P. Dearden. M. Bennett, and J. Johnston: Corridors: C. Boyd:
Community Conserved Areas: A. Kothariet ai: lUCN PA Management Categories: S. Chape: Participatory planning and
management - the mixed experience of the Galapagos Marine Reserve: G. Bornni-Feyerabend and A. Tye.
The progress made In setting up protected areas
was celebrated at the lUCN Vth World Parks
Congress (WPCl, in Durban, South Africa in 2003.
The 3 000 people present also recognized the many
values of protected areas and their role in bringing
"benefits beyond boundaries" to millions of people.
But, as we have seen in Chapter 3, protected areas
are under threat as never before. They are exposed
to pollution and climate change, irresponsible tour-
ism, insensitive infrastructure, and ever-increasing
demands for land, water, and other resources.
Many protected areas lack political support and are
short of financial and other resources. There are
still too many gaps in the global protected areas
system, management is often poor, and too often
local communities are alienated from, rather than
linked to, protected areas.
The Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity recognized this when they agreed their
Programme of Work on Protected Areas at Kuala
Lumpur in 2004. One of the program's goals was "to
substantially improve site-based protected area
planning and management". An ambitious target
was adopted, namely: all protected areas to have
effective management in existence by 2012, using
participatory and science-based site planning
processes that incorporate clear biodiversity
objectives, targets, management strategies, and
monitoring programs, drawing upon existing
methodologies and a long-term management plan
with active stakeholder involvement. This chapter
presents the wider context, both ecological and
social, in which protected areas need to operate,
while Chapter 5 provides a brief overview of pro-
tected area management and the challenges faced
by management agencies.
SOCIAL CONTEXT AND CHANGING PARADIGMS
Protected area policy and management is strongly
influenced by prevailing social and economic
circumstances, as well as cultural and ethical
norms. Managing protected areas is essentially a
social process. The meanings, purposes, and
management of protected areas are not static, but
develop in conjunction with wider social,
economic, and cultural influences. There is a
plurality of views about how we should relate to
the natural world, why we should protect natural
environments, and how we should manage and
use them. Protected area managers must take
account of politics, the legal system, the internal
dynamics of institutions, and broad social and
political structures and trends.
In many parts of the world, the declining
power of nation states has been associated with an
expansion of market capitalism. Major forces
affecting all areas of society include the internat-
ionalization of capital and markets through the
development of an international financial sector;
the expansion of free trade agreements; the emerg-
ence of dominant transnational corporations; and
the development of power blocs based on economic
association, such as the European Union lEU) and
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APECl.
These forces have fostered such changes as a
reduction in the size of government, corporatization
of public agencies, and the redefinition of the role of
the public sector A key policy debate throughout the
world is, and has been for many years, about a
desirable balance between the public sector and
private sector How much power should the public
and private sectors have? How should they relate to
each other? The debate is crucially important to
98
Protected areas in the wider context
5 Chape
Village in Nam Et National Protected Area, Houaphan Province, Lao PDR.
99
The world's protected areas
Protected areas are now
seen as part of a mosaic
of land and natural
resource uses that are
interdependent with
communities and
economies.
protected area managers. It influences, among
other things: who is given the responsibility for
managing protected areas; what resources are
allocated for managing protected areas; who pays
for these resources; who has the power to make
decisions and how those decisions are made.
The traditional view of protected areas as
isolated repositories for natural and cultural
heritage protection and conservation ignores the
interactions between protected areas and regional
and local communities. Protected areas are now
conceived as a long-term societal endeavor that
goes well beyond the original 'Yellowstone" vision
of what a national park should be. As noted in
Chapter 1, this shift has been summarized by
Phillips 120031, who characterizes the old and new
paradigms according to factors such as the
objectives of protected areas, their governance,
attitudes towards local people, and management.
In the context of conserving natural and cultural
heritage, important elements of the shift
encompass building a wide constituency that
supports protected areas, locating protected areas
within the wider agenda of sustainable develop-
ment, and responding to calls from indigenous
peoples and local communities for more
recognition of their rights, needs, and cultures.
In all, these constitute a "paradigm shift" in
thinking about protected areas. Protected areas,
with their conservation emphasis, are now seen as
part of a mosaic of land and natural resource uses
that are interdependent with communities and
economies. Increasing recognition is being given to
the importance of protected areas in furthering
regional development. Protected area managers
have a responsibility to explain the local and reg-
ional benefits that protected areas provide, as well
as engaging more fully with local communities to
minimize costs and maximize the flow of these
benefits. Managers must recognize and meet
responsibilities concerning regional communities
and indigenous peoples. The fact that many prot-
ected areas are being managed by indigenous and
local communities is also gaining recognition.
There is a two-way relationship between
regional communities and protected areas. For the
values of a protected area to be maintained, it must
function as part of its community. Protected areas
cannot be divorced from local and regional land
uses. Most exist in a matrix of multiple-use public
lands and private lands devoted to agriculture,
private forestry, urban development, and other
uses. Protected areas typically require trans-
portation routes, energy grids, water supply, and
waste disposal systems. They can create employ-
ment, housing needs, and business opportunities,
particularly those related to the supply of goods and
services needed to support visitor activities. These
needs and opportunities in turn trigger develop-
ment requirements within a region for infra-
structure, waste disposal, and natural resources,
such as water iMachlis and Field. 2000al.
Management issues ranging from fire
protection and prevention to the spread of
introduced species can arise from such develop-
ment activity. This implies that management policies
for protected areas should be integrated into the
broader context of community sustainability.
Strategic planning is required to integrate those
concerns within the boundaries of the protected
area network (biodiversity conservation, visitor
service provision, environmental protection] with
wider environmental, economic, and social
sustainability Machlis and Field |20D0bl advocate
that protected area managers should:
Zi take responsibility to influence development in
rural areas and aggressively seek to maintain
100
Protected areas in the wider context
the viability of communities that surround
protected areas;
□ promote a sense of focal identity that allows
people to determine their own destinies;
□ create allies among local citizens, especially
local leaders, to develop a management
capability at a landscape scale;
Q emphasize the local and regional benefits of
protected areas;
□ adopt a collaborative approach to planning,
with citizen participation understood as being
crucial to the development of leadership and
capacity for sustainable development;
Q contribute to preserving the overall character
and lifestyle adjacent to protected areas while
maintaining opportunities for planned growth;
□ give technical assistance to rural and gateway
regions, train staff in rural development and
collaboration skills, and assess progress in
achieving sustainable rural development.
ESTABLISHING PROTECTED AREAS
Chapter 2 discussed the need for systematic
planning of protected area networks with respect to
the coverage of biodiversity, particularly in relation
to the targets under the protected areas work
program adopted by the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity in 200/* and the action plan
developed in 2003 as part of the Vth World Parks
Congress. However, as well as identifying gaps in
the existing network, a variety of other factors need
to be taken into consideration when planning a
comprehensive system of protected areas at the
national level. These include:
□ defining the priority of protected areas as a
worthwhile national concern - but often linked
to international concerns and obligations;
J defining the relationships between various
categories of protected area;
□ defining the relationships between protected
areas and other land-use and tenure categories;
3 habitat requirements of rare or other species
and their minimum viable population sizes;
ZS connectivity between units (corridors) to
permit wildlife migration;
□ perimeter/area relationships;
□ natural system linkages and boundaries;
□ traditional use, occupancy, and sustainability;
□ cost of achieving protected area status (Davey,
19981.
In general, most protected areas have been
established through political processes: that is,
government agencies and/or interest groups have
The meaning, purpose,
and management of
protected areas develop
within wider social,
economic, and cultural
influences. Bukit Timah
Nature Reserve,
Singapore, at ^6i ha,
may be small but it
fulfills important
conservation and
social objectives in
one of the world's
smaller countries.
101
The world"s protected areas
BOX /..l : PRIVATE PROTECTED AREAS
In 2003 the World Parks Congress defined a private
protected area IPPA) as "a land parcel of any size ttiat
is 11 predominantly managed for biodiversity con-
servation; 21 protected with or without formal
government recognition; and 31 is owned or otherwise
secured by individuals, communities, corporations or
non-government organizations" (WPC, 2003). Carter
ef al. lin press! further consider the governance
regime of PPAs and introduce the term "private sector
conservation enterprise IPSCE)" for the diverse array
of "non-state actors or organizations that might be
involved in either the management and/or ownership
of PPAs; from corporate institutions and limited
companies, through to private individuals and trusts".
PPAs have the potential to supplement
government initiatives to protect natural ecosystems,
particularly in areas where remaining natural lands
are already held in private ownership. Although not
new Ithe first land trust in the USA dates back to 1891,
while the National Trust established the first nature
reserve in the United Kingdom in 1899), PPAs have
become widespread in recent decades and in many
countries they now represent a significant proportion
of the total protected areas estate.
In North America and a number ot European
countries, many such reserves are owned and
managed by membership organizations. In the United
Kingdom some 2 250 private local nature reserves are
owned or managed by a group of A7 local wildlife
trusts while hundreds more are managed by other
national conservation NGOs - the National Trust, with
over 3 million members, owns some 2,480km2.
Although many such sites are smaller than national
protected areas, they may be critically important for
certain species, or for the role they may play in a wider
network, or for public education.
In the United States, a system of more than
1 600 private, non-profit organisations known as "land
trusts" hold large areas in PPAs and have transferred
ownership of even larger areas to public authorities
(see Regional Analysis, North America). The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) has successfully exported many
of its PPA approaches, working with partners, to
other countries. TNC is also undertaking important
work on private sector approaches in marine
environments, including the purchase of fisheries
leases around shellfish beds, kelp communities and
offshore trawling grounds.
In Southern and Eastern Africa private reserves
make up a significant area of the total protected areas
network - in Tanzania PPAs cover and estimated
126 000 km^ - 13.3 percent of all terrestrial land
(Carter et al., in press). Several large private reserves
in South Africa lie adjacent to the Kruger National
Park allowing free movement of game and adding
1 800 km^ to the total area protected. Worldwide, the
largest sites of all include the Pumalin Park in Chile
(3 000 km^); the NamiRand Nature Reserve in
Namibia II 800 km'); and the Diamond A Ranch in
New Mexico USA (1 300 km').
Funds for purchase and management of PPAs
comes from a range of sources. Many are purchased
or supported by grants from the private and/or the
public sector, and from membership fees of the
supported the reservation of an area, and this
support has ultimately been manifested in declar-
ation of the area under appropriate legislation or
alternative governance arrangements. Such polit-
ical approaches to selecting protected areas are
often acf hoc or opportunistic, heavily influenced by
threat and availability, and primarily determined by
economic and cultural factors (Margules, 1989;
Pressey, Bedward, and Keith, 1994). While many
important natural areas have been protected in this
manner, regional conservation of biodiversity and
consideration of other significant conservation
values are not guaranteed. In many countries,
protected area systems reflect bias towards some
types of landscapes and ecosystems rather than
others. Many large parks are in mountainous or
relatively inaccessible areas or in areas of low
productivity for other uses.
Formal selection procedures, while not a
substitute for the political process, can allow for
more informed land-use decisions based on key
biological and social criteria. A procedure for the
selection of protected areas should be explicit,
systematic, and straightforward, and should con-
sider the extent to which the options for reservation
are lost if a particular site is not preserved, while
also recognizing the values of efficiency and
flexibility (Pressey, Johnson, and Wilson, 1994).
Systematic approaches to protected area selection
are characterized as being:
102
Protected areas in the wider context
supporting NGOs. In some countries a major drive for
PPA establishment has been the economic value of
nature-based tourism, wildlife-based photo tourism
and recreational hunting (Christiansen ef a/., 20051.
Nearly half of the reserves in Southern Africa and
South America surveyed by Langholz 119961 received
90 percent of their revenues from tourism and many
sites are considered more profitable than, for
example, agriculture.
Approaches to visitor access are highly varied.
Those relying on tourism may charge high entry tees
and may limit visitor densities: in Kenya 84 percent of
PPAs exhibited a high level of control over 'access' to
the area (Carter et ai, in press). Others are open
access and may see such access as a critical means of
strengthening local support for conservation or for
encouraging membership or donations.
Although sometimes controversial, hunting is an
important driver behind PPA establishment in many
countries. Properly managed, hunting can be entirely
sustainable, and in some cases may actually
contribute to maintaining ecosystem processes, for
example the removal of invasive mammals, or the
maintenance of stable large-herbivore numbers in the
absence of a natural predator population. In Tanzania
some hunting companies provide dividend flow/s to
local community projects, as well as providing
employment in the region.
Concern is sometimes expressed at the
possibility that private protected areas may be less
secure than public sites over the long-term,
particularly in the case of individual private
landholders, w/ho may decide to sell the land, or
change its use. In many countries such change of use
may be prevented by the granting, or imposition, of
legal status on to such lands, incorporating them into
the national protected areas system, while allowing
certain private property rights to be maintained. An
increasingly popular system in North America is that
of the conservation "easement" whereby certain
rights typically associated with private property are
relinquished in a manner that is binding on all
subsequent landowners, in perpetuity Such agree-
ments vary on a case-by-case basis, but often restrict
the right to building, mining, timber extraction or
agricultural use. In some cases these are given
voluntarily by the land owners, but recognizing the
cost in terms of loss of resale value, and the
potentially great conservation benefits, such
easements are often paid for by state and federal
agencies, or by conservation groups .
Given the complex range of governance regimes
and management mechanisms exhibited in PPAs,
categorizing them and gathering concrete information
on their scale and scope is challenging. Carter ef al.
(in press) have developed an outline typology for PPAs
that differentiates the various approaches observed in
East Africa, ranging from "Individual Private Protected
Areas" through to "Community Conservation Con-
cessions". However, considerable work is needed to
understand the scale and scope of PPA growth
internationally and the efficacy of PPAs in meeting
biodiversity imperatives and the associated social
impacts of such initiatives. To date a very large
number of PPAs remain unreported within the WDPA
and remain unrepresented in the global statistics
presented in this volume.
□ data-driven, using features such as species,
vegetation types, reserve size, or connectivity;
and selection units that are divisions of the
landscape that are to be evaluated for their
contribution to satisfying sonne objectives;
□ objective-led, based on a set of criteria that
have quantitative targets for each feature;
□ efficient, in that they attempt to achieve the
goals at a minimum cost in terms of other
potential land uses;
Q transparent, in that reasons behind selection
of each reserve are explicit;
□ flexible, because features and targets can be
varied to explore how changing these
parameters influences the configuration and
extent of the selected reserve networl<
IPressey, 1998).
Formal criteria are used to assess whether each
unit should be included in the reserve network.
Biophysical criteria include factors such as: rarity
of species; representativeness of ecosystems; div-
ersity of habitat, and naturalness. Social criteria
include; threat of human interference; community
appeal; aesthetics; education value; and recreation
and tourism. Planning criteria include: adherence
to catchment principles; bioregional boundaries;
natural boundaries; fire control; and availability of
the land. Reserve design criteria are concerned
with the spatial placement and characteristics of
103
The world's protected areas
Blue wildebeest
{Connochaetes taurinus)
in the Serengeti, Kenya.
protected area networks and individual units,
including their size, boundaries, shape, con-
nectivity, and geographic relationship to other
units. The use of these criteria reflects the import-
ance of considering the relationship of individual
units to a networl< as a whole and to the landscape
or seascape in which each protected area sits.
From the perspective of biodiversity, one useful
conceptual approach is that of biological and
conservation corridors.
Biological corridors
As habitat conversion and alteration outside
protected areas land often within theml continues,
protected areas themselves can increasingly be
seen as isolated islands of habitats. This affects
their ability to maintain biodiversity as even the
largest protected areas may be too small to support
important ecosystem processes and viable
populations of some species in the long term.
Small isolated populations of species are
vulnerable to extinction due to inbreeding
depression and random demographic and environ-
mental variation - analysis carried out by popul-
ation biologists indicate that anywhere from 50 to
5 000 individuals may be the minimum population
size for the long-term survival of a species in any
area, depend on the biology of the species
concerned and prevailing environmental conditions.
However, populations can persist below this level
where there Is sufficient movement between areas
to allow regular replenishment or recolonization.
Linked fragments are therefore expected to support
greater numbers of species in the long-term than
Isolated fragments of the same size.
Wide-ranging or migratory animal species face
a particular challenge. Such species typically move
periodically or seasonally from one core habitat
area to another These areas may be widely
separated from each other - by thousands of
kilometers in the case of some migratory species.
Effective connectivity between core areas is
determined by the relative ease with which
individuals or populations can move from one to
another through the Intervening areas. Where such
movement is made difficult or impossible, the
survival of the population may be threatened even If
the core areas remain intact.
From a biodiversity perspective, the ideal
response to such problems would be the expansion
of existing protected areas, but often this Is not
feasible, particularly In the case of wide-ranging
migratory species. One alternative approach has
been to focus on biological corridors or movement
pathways between core areas. These may be
continuous or a series of "stepping stones" (for
example, the Western Hemisphere Shorebirds
Network In North America provides stepping stones
of protected habitat along a continental flywayl.
Design of biological corridors aimed at
conserving particular species may be based on
direct studies or simulations of their migration or
dispersal pathways. Designing biological corridors
is more challenging when the goal is wider
biodiversity conservation. This is particularly the
case In marine environments - some species are
active dispersers, others passive, and species
disperse at different times and for different periods,
interacting with seasonally variable currents. In this
context, one option Is to clearly Identify priority
species, such as globally threatened, keystone or
umbrella species. Another is to look at core areas
and biological corridors in the wider landscape or
seascape - the so-called conservation corridor
approach, discussed below.
There has been significant controversy about
the concept of biological corridors. The value of
connectivity Is not in question as much as whether
106
Protected areas in the wider context
corridors actually provide connectivity and, from an
economic perspective, whether investing in
corridors makes the best use of scarce conserv-
ation resources. The problem of demonstrating
connectivity in part reflects the difficulty of
designing rigorous studies of corridor use by target
species in real landscapes, and the poor design
of many studies. It is also difficult to generalize from
existing studies, because the results are both
species and landscape-specific. Further concerns
have been raised about the potential dangers
of corridors - they may stimulate an influx of
invasive species; expose animals to poachers;
or encourage dispersal to sink habitats (those in
which mortality rates exceed reproduction rates).
The stepping stone approach may perpetuate
habitat fragmentation.
Conservation corridors
Some of these concerns can be addressed by care-
ful design of corridors within a protective matrix of
compatible land and resource uses: the conser-
vation corridor approach. Delineation of the
boundaries of conservation corridors is most
effectively undertaken with a rigorous scientific
base, including the assessment of the habitat
requirements of minimum viable populations of
target species, the ecological processes required
and disturbance patterns. Mapping the overlapping
habitat and connectivity needs of a number of
different target species may lead to the identifi-
cation of large-scale biodiversity conservation
corridors whose boundaries will often correspond
to biogeographical frontiers. Biogeographlcal
frontiers may therefore offer a useful first-cut at
corridor boundaries while further information is
being compiled.
The key components of a conservation corridor
are core areas, biological corridors or linkages, and
compatible land or resource use areas. In planning
corridors, ideally such areas should be identified for
all target species and key ecological processes,
although identifying priority ecological processes
and locating them in the landscape or seascape for
the purposes of spatial planning has been a real
challenge for conservationists. Analyses should
include an assessment of the area required to
enable species and ecosystems to recover from
expected disturbance patterns, whether natural or
anthropogenic. Of particular importance is the need
to try to build in the capacity to respond to global
climate change, discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
BOX k.l: the BAJA to BERING MARINE
CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The Baja to Bering Marine Conservation Initiative
IB2BI ainns to support the creation of a fully
representative network of marine protected areas
iMPAs) (including core no-take areas and
connecting corridorsi and the protection of fully
functioning marine ecosystems, including the full
range of species, by strengthening existing MPAs.
fostering the creation of new areas and linking
these with related marine conservation Initiatives
In Canada, the United States and Mexico. As
scientific underpinning, the Marine Biology
Conservation Institute has compiled data on blue
whale and sea turtle migration patterns, deep sea
corals, major current patterns, blogeographic
regions and other biological, biophysical and
socio-economic variables. Research has focused
on identifying areas that are important for
migratory species over many years, despite
variable conditions. This research Is combined with
information on threats and opportunities to identify
priority conservation areas.
Orca {Orcinus area]
off Vancouver Island,
Canada.
105
The world's protected areas
The identification and definition of connpatible
land or resource uses has also often proved
something of a challenge. Considerable research
may be required to provide a comprehensive
picture as different species groups are likely to
have very different needs. Canopy bird species, for
example, may be satisfied with intermittent
patches of natural or semi-natural canopy in an
agroforestry landscape, whereas ground-dwelling
species may need more or less continuous natural
or semi-natural groundcover
The design process for conservation corridors
depends on the local context. It is often iterative,
with boundaries and areas refined as more
information becomes available. In many regions of
high biodiversity importance, there are a number
of competing pressures on land and resources,
and poverty elimination and development goals
are priorities. In these contexts, large-scale
conservation plans are only likely to be realized if
they are compatible and even contribute to these
objectives. Fortunately, the large scale of
conservation corridors provides greater flexibility
to identify areas where conservation may
generate both conservation and development
benefits, for example, through ecosystem services
such as the protection of water catchments or
fisheries stock recovery. They also allow for
targeting of development activities at areas with
minimum negative impacts.
Conservation corridor design in context
Within conservation corridors, all efforts should be
made to ensure that core areas are legally protected
with biodiversity conservation as the primary goal.
Corridors and linkages also need legal protection
with biodiversity conservation as a recognized goal
to protect them from incursions that erode their
contribution to connectivity. The selection of impl-
ementation mechanisms tor compatible land and
resource use areas needs to be based on a
systematic threats-and-opportunities analysis,
which traces direct threats to underlying causes
and pinpoints the most effective entry point.
Compatible land or resource uses may be promoted
through incentives or regulation and through
spatially targeted approaches or higher-level policy
initiatives. For example. Conservation International
has targeted its Conservation Coffee Program at
farmers in high biodiversity areas, such as those in
Mexico's El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve. In return for
reducing agrochemicals, diversifying the shade
canopy with native tree species, conserving on-farm
forest, and respecting the rules and regulations of
the adjacent protected area, farmers receive access
to higher and more stable prices. Where the policy
framework allows, planning restrictions or special
planning requirements, such as those on certain
types of development and more rigorous require-
ments for environmental impact assessments or
more stringent environmental quality standards,
can help secure compatible land/resource uses.
Usually, spatially specific strategies will be
strengthened by policy action at a higher level, such
as addressing "perverse" incentives or subsidies
that encourage non-sustainable resource use.
lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT
CATEGORIES
The plurality of roles for protected areas is
reflected in the lUCN Protected Areas Manage-
ment Category system, which identifies a range of
protected areas based on management objectives.
The category system has been incorporated into
national legislation and policy of a number of
countries and accommodates a range of levels
of human intervention. Thus, we have protected
areas that include highly protected nature
reserves, modified landscapes, manipulated eco-
systems and resident peoples.
Despite the growth in global agreements on
nature conservation and establishment of
protected areas, protected area designations are
not necessarily directly comparable across
countries because legislative regimes may differ.
More than 1 000 different terms are used around
the world to designate protected areas. These
terms are often defined within national legislation
with respect to objectives and legal protection for
the area in question. Sometimes there may be only
marginal differences between countries for
essentially the same type of protected area. For
example, there are managed nature reserves in
the Bahamas, strict nature reserves in Bhutan,
nature reserves in Ontario, Canada, national
nature reserves in the Czech Republic, nature
reserves and marine nature reserves in Indonesia,
nature conservation areas in Japan, and strict
natural reserves in Sri Lanka, which are all strictly
protected and accessible primarily for scientific
research (Green and Paine, 1997). However, in
many cases the same terms have very different
management objectives. The classic example is
the term 'national park" which is used for
106
Protected areas in the wider context
protected areas such as the large, predominantly
natural areas in Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada,
and the USA, but also for areas in Europe where
intensively managed and transformed landscapes
have been created through continuous
modification by people for thousands of years.
The need for internationally standardized
protected area nomenclature and definition was
raised at the First World Conference on National
Parks in 1962 IBrocl<man and Curry-Lindahl, 196-11.
The conference recommended that the then
International Commission on National Parks
(today's World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPAII "establish a clarification of terms con-
cerning national parks and equivalent reserves". A
debate on the issue then ensued for the next 30
years. Initially, in 1978, lUCN adopted a class-
ification system based on ten categories. Following
a review process that ran from 1984 to 1990, a
proposal was made to reduce the number of cate-
gories to five. The present system of six categories,
as follows, was finally adopted in 1 994:
Category la: Strict nature reserve
Category lb: Wilderness area
Category II: National park
Category III: Natural monument
Category IV: Habitat/species management area
Category V: Protected landscape/seascape
Category VI: Managed resource protected area (see
Chapter 1 for details).
These categories also serve a range of secondary
management objectives as illustrated in Table 4.1 .
lUCN management categories serve a critical
role in regional and global analyses. They provide a
common language and enable the comparison and
summary of management objectives for the con-
servation estate. They also enable the interpretation
of national protected area definitions and introduce
an element of compatibility within them. The lUCN
WCPA has provided long-term international guid-
ance on the categorization of protected areas to:
□ alert governments to the importance of
protected areas;
□ encourage governments to develop systems of
protected areas with management aims tail-
ored to national and local circumstances;
□ reduce the confusion that has arisen from the
adoption of many different terms to describe
different kinds of protected area;
□ provide international standards to help global
and regional accounting and comparisons
between countries; and
Zl provide a framework for the collection, hand-
ling and dissemination of data about protected
areas; and generally to improve commun-
ication and understanding between all those
engaged in conservation' (lUCN, 1994).
In any overarching categorization system, the
application of the basic principles to the real world
is not straightforward, for example the application
of multiple classifications. Many protected areas,
especially larger sites, include a range of values and
management objectives that are often reflected in
use and management zonation schemes within the
park Thus, a single protected area can legitimately
be subdivided into a number of lUCN management
categories that reflected the range of management
objectives applied to substantial components of
its total area. The 1994 lUCN guidelines noted that
this is "entirely consistent with the application of
the system, providing such areas are identified
separately for accounting and reporting purposes".
Taveuni Forest Reserve,
Fiji - an uncategorised
protected area with
high biodiversity
conservation values.
107
The world's protected areas
TABLE 4.1 : MATRIX OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND lUCN CATEGORIES
Management objective
Scientific research
lb
3
IV
2
VI
3
Wilderness protection
2
1
2
3
3
-
2
Presen/ation of species and qenetic diversity
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
Ivlaintenance of environmental seraces
2
1
1
na
1
2
1
Protection of specific natural and cultural features
na
na
2
1
3
1
3
Tourism and recreation
na
2
1
1
3
1
3
Education
na
na
2
2
2
2
3
Sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems
na
3
3
na
2
2
1
Maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes
na
na
na
na
na
1
2
Key: 1 ^ Primary objective. 2 = Secondary objective. 3 = Potentially applicable, na = Not applicable
Source' lUCN 1994.
In 2001 , WCPA agreed that a nnultiple categorization
approach could be applied to MPAs.
A number of countries have formally adopted
the lUCN management categories as the basis for
planning and managing their national protected
area systems. In July 2003, the international credi-
bility of the categories was further strengthened by
the formal adoption of the system for African
protected areas in the revised African Convention on
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
approved by the Assembly of the African Union. The
importance of the lUCN categories was also
highlighted by Recommendation 2.82 of the Amman
World Conservation Congress held in 2000, which
called on lUCN state members to prohibit explo-
ration and extraction of mineral resources in areas
with lUCN Protected Areas Management Categories
I to IV and recommended that they restrict such
activities in those with Categories V and Vl.
Category assignment does not equate to man-
agement effectiveness ISection 171. The 199i lUCN
guidelines noted that they are "two separate judge-
ments: what an area is intended to be; and how it is
run". However, they are interrelated, because if a
protected area is not managed to achieve its defined
objectives - the basis of the category system - and
its values are degraded or otherwise significantly
changed, then the validity of the original category
assignment in real terms is questionable. Clearly, to
be an effective international system, lUCN's man-
agement categories need to be applied consistently
to protected areas that are managed effectively to
achieve their stated objectives.
lUCN and the WCPA membership continue to
review and refine the protected area category
system to ensure that it is relevant and able to
be implemented effectively. Since the 2003
World Parks Congress there have been numerous
meetings and debates on the categories, culmin-
ating in a global "summit" in Spain in May 2007,
attended by over a hundred experts from around the
world. As a result of this process revised guidelines
will be released in 2008.
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT
AS GOVERNANCE
Good governance has emerged as a key issue in
protected area management over the last decade.
Attaining protected area objectives, such as bio-
diversity protection and support for and by local
communities, is strongly influenced by governance.
Many of the challenges related to ecosystem-based
management of protected areas also hinge upon
improving governance. Protected area manage-
ment IS more than just an activity of the state.
Governance modes range from the traditional
exercise of government authority, through to a
wide variety of partnership, co-management, and
informal arrangements involving multiple agencies,
interest groups, and individuals (Ostrom, 1990;
Reeve, Marshall, and Musgrave, 20041. Graham,
Amos, and Plumptre 120031 defined governance as:
"the interactions among structures, processes
and traditions that determine how power and
responsibilities are exercised, how decisions
are tal<en, and how citizens or other stake-
holders have their say. Fundamentally, it is
about power, relationships and accountability:
who has influence, who decides, and how
decision-maliers are held accountable. "
108
Protected areas in the wider context
Government management is the traditional mode
of protected area governance, and remains the
dominant mode in many developed countries.
Government agencies can be established within
national, provincial or local tiers of government.
Governments can also delegate their authority to
another government agency, statutory authority, or
non-governmental organization.
Co-managed protected areas are where authority,
responsibility, and accountability are shared among
two or more parties, which may include government
agencies, Indigenous people, non-governmental
organizations, and private Interests. There are two
types of co-management. With collaborative
management, authority is held by one party (often a
governmental agency], but this party is required to
collaborate with other parties. Joint management
Involves true sharing of authority among two or
more parties, with none of these parties having
ultimate authority In Its own right.
Private management can be done voluntarily by
Individuals, not-for-profit organizations, or
commercial enterprises (see Box AA]. Generally,
the authority of these parties to identify and manage
land arises from the private property rights they
hold over an area of land or water Protected area
designation can be formalized through mechanisms
such as a covenant on the title of the property In
some cases, government agencies provide manage-
ment and financial support to the private owners.
Community managed protected areas (also called
community conserved areas] are managed
voluntarily by indigenous or local communities.
Management regimes may be established through
customary laws and institutions using traditional
knowledge, or through partnership agreements
among consortia of local people.
Examples of protected areas managed under
various governance modes are given In Table 4.2.
WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY
The Millennium Development Goals highlight the
importance of addressing social issues in order to
achieve sustainabillty. The goals include eradicating
poverty and hunger, and improving access to health
services. These goals are now a major focus of most
International programs and protected area
organizations have a role In their implementation.
TABLE 4.2;
Mode
MODES OF PROTECTED AREA GOVERNANCE
Type Example
Government
National
Taman Negara National Park, Malaysia
State or province
Big Basin Redw/oods State Park, California,
USA
Local
Waipa, New Zealand
Delegated (to another
government agency]
Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Marine Reserve, Australia
Delegated (to statutory authority]
Peak District National Park, UK
Delegated (to local government
or community group]
Pare Naturel Regional
Normandie-Maine, France
Co-management
Collaborative
Joint
Bwindi impenetrable National Park, Uganda
Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal
Private
individual
Winlaton Grassland, Northern Victoria.
Australia
Not-for-profit organization
Big Courtin Island, Prince Edward
Island, Canada
Commercial organization
Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd,
Zanzibar Tanzania
Community
Indigenous
Reserve Etnica Forestal AvKa, Ecuador
Local
Shimshal Community Conservation Area.
Pakistan
109
The world's protected areas
BOX 4.3: SPECIES CONSERVATION AND TRADITIONAL RESOURCE OWNERSHIP IN THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS: THE CASE OF THE CRESTED IGUANA ON YADUA TABA ISLAND, FIJI
Land is a sacred inheritance to most Pacific Islanders
and is treasured tor its social, cultural, historical and
development values. Many of these values do not sit
comfortably with modern norms of land management,
and use and/or ovs/nership change whether permanent
or temporary. These problems are often compounded
by factors such as rapidly increasing populations,
development and/or cash income requirements, which
challenge ill-equipped traditional management
structures. Most Pacific Island governments are loud
in their rhetoric for conservation and environmental
protection, but provide minimal technical and financial
resources to effect it.
It is not surprising therefore that, in general,
protected area management in the Pacific Islands has
travelled, and continues to travel, on a bumpy road
with no clear direction or destination.
In Fiji, the colonial response was to declare
Nature Reserves under forestry legislation, and six of
these persist to this day, but not one of them has a
management plan and not one of them is under any
form of active management. In the modern era, there
has been a welcome shift to community-managed
protected areas, but in many cases the switch has been
total and without much thought. The success remains
limited, in large part due to the lack of benefits accrued
by the landowners. So often well-meaning
conservationists try to convince landowners that
official protection of a particular area will bring extra
benefits over and above those that the landowners
already enjoy from the area. In many cases landowners
are asked to reduce extractive uses of land or sea
areas with only fuzzy indications of future benefits.
Until such time as Pacific land or marine owners can
receive immediate and tangible benefits, community-
managed protected areas are unlikely to be any more
successful than traditional western approaches.
What is clear is that a lot more innovation is
required in enabling land and marine owners to be
tangible and immediate beneficiaries of protected
area initiatives, than has hitherto been the case.
Conservation of Fiji's crested iguana [Brachy-
lophus vitiensis] on Yadua Taba island illustrates some
of the typical challenges which all Pacific island
countries are facing. Yadua Taba is a 70 ha island that
supports the world's last viable population of crested
iguana , which number some 7 000-8 000. The island
also contains a fine stand of dry littoral forest, a
habitat that has been almost completely lost
elsewhere in Fiji. When the iguana population was first
"discovered" in 1979, it received worldwide attention
and the Fiji government moved quickly to establish a
sanctuary through a traditional approach to the Bull
Raviravi (the title of the landowning chief of the
islandl. Thereafter, management was delegated to the
National Trust for Fiji but minimal, or no resources
were provided other than a payment of approximately
US$ 1 500 annually to the Bull Raviravi.
The problem here was that the landowners
receiving the rental lived on the mainland of Vanua
Levu some 60 km away while the inhabitants of the
immediately neighboring Yadua Island who main-
tained usufruct rights on the island received nothing.
They were even asked to remove their goats from the
island. This they eventually did in 1989, but only after
receiving payment from the Worldwide Fund for
Nature. The National Trust appointed a warden from
the community, but he received no regular pay and,
At the 2003 Vth WPG there was a focus on social
issues and encouraging community participation in
protected area management. Some of the topics
included recognition and integration of indigenous
conservation practices and the concept of com-
munity conserved areas.
As the population continues to grow, involving
the community in protected area management
and the creation of protected areas becomes
increasingly important. The demands of an ever-
increasing population, for infrastructure and serT/-
ices, place pressure on natural and cultural spaces.
Protected area managers and community groups
need to work together if the values of such spaces
are to be maintained.
The success or failure of protected areas as a
land use will be dependent on public support.
Although protected areas bring a rich array of
benefits, experience shows that the task of
engaging support among some communities is not
easy. Investment in communicating and involving
the community in the benefits of parks, their
management, and activities is an ongoing priority
for agencies. The needs and desires of people must
110
Protected areas in the wider context
although the Trust managed to attract some small-
scale grants from a variety of international donors
and agencies, little or none of this saw its way to
either the landowning or neighboring communities.
Meanwhile, relations between the Yadua villagers and
the landowners deteriorated as a result of the annual
payment, which was believed to be much greater than
it actually was.
In 1992, WWF funded a management plan for the
island, which officially recognized for the first time that
a lease of the island from the landowners was
desirable if not essential. This at a time when
"community management" was the universal answer,
and western approaches of land alienation considered
totally inappropriate. But for Yadua Taba it was
essential to ensure that the rightful landowners,
although "absent", were benefited through the receipt
of lease rentals, thus enabling all attention to be paid
to engaging the neighboring community in
management and tourism initiatives on the island. It
took over ten years for the National Trust to effect a
lease, but in the meantime they entered into a five-year
association with Greenforce, an NGO supplying
volunteers for conservation action. The Greenforce
Camp was on Yadua Island and they were ostensibly
tasl<ed with baseline data collection and monitoring of
the marine environment around Yadua Taba, such that
a combined island-marine protected area could be
considered for World Heritage listing. The association
proved an effective initiative, not so much for the
biological data collected as for the diverse benefits it
brought to the community, which were associated with
Yadua Tabas status as a protected area.
Currently Yadua Taba is leased to the National
Trust for Fiji, with the landowners enjoying an annual
rental with clauses allowing a share of any
commercial take from the island. A full-time ranger is
S. Chape
employed from the local community and there are
management, restoration, and research initiatives on
the island using community labor The leasing
arrangement has brought some stability and purpose
to the conservation of the island and has attracted an
NGO to assist in long-term iguana research and dry
forest restoration activities.
Yadua Taba provides several interesting lessons,
including:
□ even a situation with the very highest
conservation priority and urgency is unlikely to
gain active management support from a Pacific
Island nation with limited resources;
IJ each site needs a conservation arrangement
tailored to its needs, and this may be traditional or
a western-oriented approach or a combination of
both;
Q money, in even small amounts, can easily
disrupt traditional relationships;
Q legal distinctions between landowners and
usufruct rights holders are of little significance
in effecting conservation outcomes; and,
□ indirect conservation benefits to communities
can be as important as direct ones.
be considered from the outset and throughout the
management process. Agencies, in working with
the community to achieve conservation outcomes,
must understand the community and be part of it.
To communicate effectively, agencies need to
understand the community's needs, attitudes,
values, and behavior.
Constituency-building is a global trend that
involves establishing broadly based coalitions and
partnerships directed towards sustainable envir-
onmental management, including conservation
through various forms of protected area. Long-term
conservation at the landscape scale requires
genuine support and commitment from a wide
range of constituencies. Protected area managers
must secure widespread community support, both
to legitimize their work and to gain approval for
them to expand and strengthen their activities. It is
acknowledged that achieving satisfactory conserv-
ation outcomes will require considerable expend-
iture of funds - funds that will only be raised if there
is community understanding of, and support for,
protected area management objectives. But no
matter how much funding is available, protected
111
The world's protected areas
BOX l*A: KAA-IYA DEL GRAN CHACO NATIONAL PARK AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AREA
The Wildlife Conservation Society IWCS) and the
Capitania de Alto y Bajo Izozog (CABI) have been
collaborating in the design and implementation of a
major community-based w/ildlife management
program in Bolivia's Chaco region. WCS is an inter-
national conservation organization recognized for
research on vi/ildlife populations and ecology, and site-
based approaches to the conservation of wild areas.
CABI is the indigenous organization that represents
some 9 000 izocetio-Guarani people living in 23
communities along the Parapeti River, south of the
Bafiados de Izozog wetlands.
A key accomplishment was the establishment of
Kaa-lya del Gran Chaco National Park and Integrated
Management Area (KINPl, in 1995. With technical
support from WCS, CABI successfully proposed
the establishment of the park to the Bolivian
government. Subsequently, CABI was named KINP
co-adminlstrator, under an agreement with the
government. At 3A million hectares. KINP is the
largest protected area in Bolivia, and contains the
largest area of dry tropical forest under protection in
the world. Establishing the KINP was part of a broader
CABI land management strategy. In early 1997, under
the terms of Bolivia's agrarian reform law, CABI
claimed for a 1 .9 million hectare indigenous territory,
in contrast to other cases in Bolivia, where parks and
indigenous territorial claims overlap and are a source
of conflicts, CABI's approach created the opportunity
to manage 5.3 million hectares of the Bolivian Chaco
based on principles of conservation and sustainable
use of wildlife and other natural resources.
Moving beyond the political success of having
created this vast area, the major focus of continuing
CABI-WCS collaboration has been to assume the
technical and administrative challenges of effectively
managing it. At the local level, this effort has focused
on: strengthening CABI's technical and administrative
capacities; participatory wildlife population and
ecology research and defining wildlife management
practices; environmental planning and monitoring;
and environmental education. Since 1995, USAID/
Bolivia has provided critical financial support in each
of these areas.
However, these local efforts needed to occur in
the context of addressing larger regional issues
affecting land use, specifically the rapid expansion of
natural gas exploitation and export, deeply rooted land
conflicts, and weak government capacity to maintain
basic funding levels for national parks. With support
from WCS, CABI led indigenous organizations affected
by the Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline in negotiating a
landmark agreement with pipeline sponsors, which,
among other things, created a private trust fund with
an initial capital of US$ 1 million to provide a perma-
nent revenue source for the park, and established a
US$ 1 .5 million fund for the titling of indigenous lands.
CABI and WCS worked with Bolivia's National
Agrarian Reform Institute to design an approach for
land titling that reduced the cost from an official
estimate of US$ 3 per hectare to US$ 0.36 per
hectare. CABI and WCS also pioneered a participatory
land use zoning approach, which allowed CABI to
reach agreements with almost all the ranchers and
farmers in the area, creating a basis for broad part-
icipation in the management of the KINP, and settling
conflicts that obstructed titling its territorial claim.
In 2001, these efforts led to the International
Association of Impact Assessment recognizing the
Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline for excellence in address-
ing environmental and social impacts associated with
a major infrastructure project. In 2002, CABI received
the XI Annual Bartolome de las Cases prize from the
Government of Spain, for extraordinary contributions
to environmental conservation and the defense of
indigenous cultures.
area management will not be successful in the long
term unless it is recognized as a core part of a wider
social, cultural, economic, and political agenda.
Protected areas are already widely supported, yet
they need to become more internalized in popular
consciousness and acceptance, so that they are
recognized as a key element in people's quality of
life, linked to their personal identity and aspirations.
For protected area managers to work in
isolation from the community is neither practical,
desirable, nor usual. Apart from legal processes
that prescribe formal consultation procedures,
managers are interacting with the community every
day on what are regarded as routine matters. Five
important questions are:
J Who are the stakeholder groups and what is
there about the ways they perceive and behave
that may affect the protected area?
112
Protected areas in the wider context
□ What community or environmental issues and
attitudes may affect tfie relationship?
□ How are decisions made and power shared in
the community?
Q Which media can best reach all potential
stakeholder groups?
Q What impacts will management plans have on
the local and wider community?
Interpretation is also an aspect of communication
that has long been at the heart of managing
protected areas. Interpretation is a means of com-
municating to the community the exceptional
heritage values of protected areas. It thereby faci-
litates conservation outcomes by helping to develop
a keener awareness, and greater understanding
and appreciation, of protected areas, as well as
enriching the visitor's experience. Interpretation
helps orientate visitors, allowing them to find the
recreation they prefer, and to do so safely and with
enjoyment. It can persuade visitors to treat sites
respectfully, without the need for regulations and
policing. It can be used to subtly direct most visitors'
attention towards less fragile sites.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS
Indigenous or "first peoples" are "the original or
oldest surviving inhabitants of an area, who have
usually lived in a traditional homeland for many
centuries"" (Stevens, 19971. Their subsistence
practices Inow or until relatively recently at least!
rely on the use of local resources and ecosystems.
The actual number of indigenous people surviving
today is a matter of definition (Kempf, 19931. In
1997, it was estimated that between 200 and 600
million of the 5.5 billion people living on Earth were
indigenous (Stevens, 1 997). Constituting only 5 to 10
percent of the world"s population, indigenous
groups contribute as much as 90 to 95 percent of
the world"s cultural diversity (Stevens, 19971. They
inhabit more than 70 countries, in habitats ranging
from the Arctic to the Amazon, claiming as
traditional homelands 20 to 30 percent of the
Earth"s surface: four to six times more territory than
is encompassed within the entire global protected
area system. Many of these environments are
fragile or under threat from development and are
characterized by high levels of biodiversity; they are
therefore significant to global conservation.
Typically, indigenous groups have suffered from the
colonization of their land by others, with their
populations decimated by violence and disease
(Kempf, 1993; Furze, de Lacy, and Birckhead, 19961.
Recognition is increasingly being given to
the special situation of indigenous people in relation
to land and sea management. Indigenous involve-
ment in conservation and protected area manage-
ment has emerged as a much lauded, but highly
charged, domain of policy and practice (Birckhead
et ai. 20001. There is growing international and
national recognition of the rights of indigenous
peoples, and the realization that the conservation of
biodiversity is unlikely to succeed without the
support of local and indigenous communities, and
that denying their resource rights eliminates
incentives to conserve these resources (Ghimire
and Pimbert, 19971.
Although indigenous rights are far from
secure, indigenous people are Increasingly active on
the world stage, fighting for rights to land and self-
determination, and the preservation of the
environment (Burger, 19901.
For some time the issues of rights and
responsibilities in natural resource management,
as well as issues of rights to information and part-
icipation in decision-making, have been addressed
internationally. The United Nations Declaration on
Government and Development, Principle 2.2 states:
"Indigenous people and their communities,
and other local communities, have a vital role in
environmental management and development
because of their knowledge and traditional
practices. States should recognize and duly support
their identity, culture and interests and enable their
effective participation In the achievement of
sustainable development. "
The rights of indigenous people are also addressed
in the work of the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Peoples and its Permanent Forum as well as under
Involving the local
community has become
an important component
In protected area
planning.
113
The world's protected areas
Ecotourists in the
Kinabatangan Wildlife
Sanctuary, Sabah,
Malaysia.
the United Nations Charter, Resolution 169 of the
International Labour Organisation, the Arhus
Convention and the Convention on Biological
Diversity, in the last of these specifically in Article
8ljl, which states that:
"Each Contracting Party stiall [...] Subject to its
national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sust-
ainable use of biological diversity and promote their
wider application with the approval and involvement
of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and
practices and encourage the eguitable sharing of
the benefits arising from the utilization of such
knowledge, innovations and practices. "
Traditional knowledge and wisdom of indigenous
peoples can help us to develop more sustainable
relationships between people and resources. It can
also help us to understand that cultural diversity
itself serves as a form of insurance, which can
expand the capacity of our species to change
iMcNeely, 1995).
As already noted, indigenous communities are
significant managers of protected areas. When they
do not have ultimate governance responsibilities,
recognition must be given to their special situation,
rights, and interests. Co-management of protected
areas has proved to be one effective means of
respecting the rights of indigenous people as well
as achieving conservation outcomes. For non-
indigenous protected area managers, co-manage-
ment translates Into greater access to traditional
management knowledge, and assistance in con-
ducting environmental research and in interpreting
cultural and natural history information ICordell,
19931. For Indigenous owners, co-management
arrangements may include funding for community
projects, income from tourism, control of cultural
sites, and support for the continuity of traditional
resource management practices. Jointly managed
protected areas have achieved, and can continue to
achieve, much for both indigenous peoples and for
conservation. Success requires people with good-
will, flexibility, and much dedication. In Australia, for
example, three of the six federal national parks -
Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, and Booderee - are
jointly managed by the Department of Environment
and Heritage and traditional Aboriginal owners.
COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS
Community Conserved Areas can be broadly defined
as "natural and modified ecosystems including
significant biodiversity, ecological services and
cultural values voluntarily conserved by concerned
Indigenous and local communities through customary
laws or other effective means". These initiatives vary
widely In their origin, purpose, and form but there are
three essential characteristics defining them:
□ Relevant indigenous and local communities are
concerned about the given ecosystem — It
usually being culturally significant or Important
for livelihoods;
□ Voluntary management decisions and efforts by
communities are effective in conserving
habitats, species, ecological services, and
associated cultural values — although the
stated objective of the management practice
may be unrelated to conservation;
Zl Indigenous and local communities are the
major players (hold power) in decision making
and implementation of decisions on the
management of the ecosystem at stake Isome
form of community authority exists and Is
capable of enforcing regulations).
Examples of Community Conserved Areas include:
sacred sites, for example the kaya forests of coastal
East Africa; communally managed rangelands and
forests, found in many parts of the world; community
fisheries areas, such as the communally managed
reef fisheries prevalent In much of the South Pacific;
and community run green spaces in urban areas,
such as City Gardens In the USA.
Community Conserved Areas can serve many
important functions, as repositories of important
1U
Protected areas in the wider context
components of biodiversity in their own right, as parts
of conservation corridors linking format protected
areas and as sites of great cultural and economic
importance for local peoples. They can offer valuable
lessons in participatory governance of official PAs,
providing examples of multilayered legal systems of
conservation, which integrate customary laws with
statutory laws and are often built on sophisticated
ecological knowledge systems, elements of which
have wider potential application.
They do, however, face several critical chall-
enges to their continued existence and growth.
Despite a long history, in many parts of the world
Community Conserved Areas are fast eroding, as
inappropriate "development" and "education"
inputs are sweeping aside the knowledge systems
that helped manage them. This is exacerbated by
the tendency of colonial or centralized political
systems to undermine traditional institutions by
taking over many of the customary functions and
powers of communities. A lack of official recognition
often hampers community efforts to maintain such
areas and, where incentive programs are in place,
they are typically underresourced. Rapid social
change can mean that communities themselves
attach less value than before to such areas, and may
prefer to convert them into some commercial use.
Social changes often also lead to increased strat-
ification and growing inequities within communities,
making sustained management of Community
Conserved Areas even more difficult.
INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREA
GOVERNANCE
Governance was a major theme of the 2003 World
Parks Congress. The Congress endorsed the
acceptance of a range of governance types as a
means of expanding the global protected area
network and increasing its legitimacy. In
preparation for the WPC, a survey of international
protected area agencies was undertaken to assess
the main changes in protected area governance
around the world during the previous decade
(1992-20021, highlight the main trends In protected
area governance, and identify whether these trends
were leading to more effective decision making
and management. Because of the variability In
management responses to some lUCN categories,
the survey concentrated on Categories i-lll.
Forty-eight protected area agencies - just
under half of those approached - responded, split
almost equally between highly developed nations
BOX 4.5: ALTO FRAGUA-INDIWASI -
THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA
RECOGNIZES A COMMUNITY CONSERVED
AREA AS A NATIONAL PARK
(adapted from Oviedo, 2003)
The Alto Fragua-lndiwasi National Park was
created in February 2002, after negotiations
involving the Colombian government, the Assoc-
iation of Indigenous Inganc Councils and the
Amazon Conservation Team, an environmental
non-governmental organization focusing on
projects to assist the Ingano Indians and other
indigenous groups in the Amazon basin. The
Park is located in the Colombian Amazon Pied-
mont on the headwaters of the Fragua River The
park is part of a region that has the highest
biodiversity in the country and is also one of the
top global biodiversity hotspots. The site will
protect various ecosystems of the tropical Andes
including highly endangered humid sub-Andean
forests, endemic species such as the spectacled
bear [Tremarctos ornatus], and sacred sites of
cultural value.
Under the terms of the decree that created
the park, the Ingano will be the principal actors
in the design and management of the park. The
area, whose name means "House of the Sun" in
the Ingano language, is a sacred place for the
indigenous communities. This is one of the
reasons why traditional authorities have insisted
that the area's management should be entrusted
to them. Although several protected areas of
Colombia share management responsibilities
with indigenous and local communities, this is
the first one where the indigenous people are
fully in charge.
The creation of Indiwasi National Park has
been a long-time aspiration of the Ingano comm-
unities of the Amazon Piedmont, for whom it is a
natural part of their Lite Plan {Plan de Vida]; that
is, a broader, long-term vision for the entirety of
their territory and the region. In addition, the
creation of the Park represents an historic
precedent for the indigenous people of Colombia,
as for the first time an indigenous community. In
this case the Ingano Indians, is the principal
actor in the design and management of an
official protected area that is fully recognized by
the state.
115
The world's protected areas
BOX 4.6: PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT: THE MIXED EXPERIENCE OF THE
GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE
Located approximately 1 000 km from mainland
Ecuador, the volcanic Galapagos Islands contain
remarkable terrestrial and marine ecosystems
Inscribed as a World Heritage site in 1978 and
extended in 2001. Some years ago the islands
became the focus of complex and violent
stakeholder conflicts. Rapid demographic and
economic change, unregulated fishing, the
appearance of high-value fisheries for Asian
markets, state-Imposed policies and regulations
and general non-compliance w/lth the management
plan of the Marine Reserve were all factors fuelling
those conflicts.
Response
In 1998, in response to national and International
concern about the threats facing Galapagos,
Ecuador passed Innovative legislation through a
Special Law that, amongst other measures.
Introduced the control of migration to the Islands,
created one of the largest marine reserves in the
world of about 130 000 km^ prohibited industrial
fishing and established institutions for participatory
management of the Marine Reserve. The creation of
the Galapagos Marine Reserve was the result of a
local participatory planning process, which took two
years, 74 meetings of a multi-stakeholder planning
group, two fisheries summit meetings and three
community workshops, and produced a consensus
management plan IHeylings and Bravo, 2001].
Implementation
Its Implementation, through a legally based
participatory management regime, has been In
progress since then, but with mixed results.
Conflicts still remain, although the management
regime In theory provides a better forum for trying to
resolve these. The Galapagos co-management
institution consists of a tripartite arrangement
uniting a local Participatory Management Board
IPMBI, an Inter-lnstltutlonal Management Authority
IIMAl and the Galapagos National Park (GNP). The
PMB is made up of the primary local stakeholders,
while the IMA comprises representatives of
ministries and local stakeholders. In the PMB, the
members present specific management proposals,
for example regulations of fisheries and tourism.
which are analyzed, negotiated and eventually
agreed upon by consensus. In principle, proposals
are channeled for approval to the IMA and then for
Implementation and control to the GNP. Proposals
that have reached a consensus In the PMB carry
important weight at the IMA level. However, if no
consensus Is reached in the PMB, the different
stakeholder positions are submitted to the IMA,
where the decision is left In the hands of a majority
of mainland ministerial officials. The consensus-
based co-management setting is intended to create
a strong incentive tor local stakeholders to develop
and agree on viable proposals in the PMB.
However, despite the establishment of
participatory management 10 years ago, fishery and
tourism interests still manage to force through
their own requirements either. In the case of
fisheries, by the threat or actual use of violence
and non-compliance or, for tourism, by political
manipulation. Unfortunately, every fishery that Is
being monitored in Galapagos has shown continuing
decline since the establishment of participatory
management, while tourism In the marine reserve
is still largely unregulated and continues to expand.
One of the key issues when Initially establishing the
participatory approach was the mis-identiflcatlon
of the fisher group as wholly artisanal whereas
it includes a large proportion of economic oppor-
tunists Imainly recent migrants to the islands).
Presidential Decree
In April 2007 the government issued a Presidential
Decree declaring the conservation and environ-
mental management of the Galapagos ecosystem in
a state of risk and a national priority, and outlined an
agenda to systematically address the various factors
affecting the state of conservation of the area.
UNESCO also sent a mission that confirmed the
threats to the outstanding value and physical
integrity of the World Heritage site. Including
increasing human immigration, uncontrolled devel-
opment of tourism, and the failure of various instit-
utions and agencies to deal with these threats. The
World Heritage Committee subsequently placed
Galapagos on the List of World Heritage In Danger In
2007 (Watkins and Cruz 20071.
116
Protected areas in the wider context
and others, with no discernible pattern of response.
Some of the largest, oldest, and most active
protected area agencies did not respond, while
some of the smallest and most resource-
challenged agencies did. However, overall the
results were a good representation of the current
perception of global protected area governance.
Protected area agency structure and decision
making
Park agencies vary greatly in organizational
structure and range of responsibilities. Just over 80
percent are part of a larger government ministry.
Significant changes have occurred since 1992, with
65 percent of countries having experienced changes
in structure over the decade to 2002, and almost
three quarters having enacted new legislation or
altered existing legislation.
Central government agencies have the
greatest overall responsibility for protected area
systems. Over 1992-2002, many countries encour-
aged greater attention to regional differences
through the decentralization of protected area
agencies, and more than one third of the survey
respondents suggested that their agency structure
was currently less centralized than it was in 1992.
As a result, decision-mal<ing power has been
increasingly delegated to various levels of govern-
ment and other stakeholder groups, allowing for the
differences between individual protected areas
within a country to be taken into consideration in
management.
Protected area management has also
engaged a wider range of stakeholders in decision
making. The amount and strength of stakeholder
involvement have dramatically increased over the
past ten years, and participatory management is
now legally required in more than half the protected
area agencies surveyed. The survey also highlighted
a general trend towards increased private sector
involvement, specially in the development of
lecoltourism opportunities. Services such as park
maintenance are also increasingly contracted out to
the private sector
Many protected area governance issues
revolve around the balance of responsibility for
management between protected area agencies and
other interests. A continuum exists, ranging from
full control by the official state agency to full control
by other interests. During 1992-2002 there was a
shift towards greater involvement of other interests
in decision making. Some i2 percent of agencies in
1992 reported that the government was the sole
decision-making authority, compared with only 12
percent a decade later Furthermore, 2002 saw an
increase to 30 percent of agencies involved with
cooperative decision making, against 12 percent in
1992, and some agencies (15 percent) indicated they
now had a joint decision-making regime, whereas
none had had one a decade earlier
Overall, the results suggest that managers
recognize that community support is a require-
ment of "good governance", and more effort is
being directed at involving various stakeholder
groups. The general perception is that increased
participation has resulted in more effective decision
making and management overall.
Accountability mechanisms
An important aspect of effective protected area
governance is the accountability of decision makers
to the public they represent. The purpose of
accountability mechanisms is to ensure that tasks
and objectives are completed on time and that
funds are spent appropriately. During the last
decade, a trend towards the increased use of such
mechanisms is evident. Accountability measures
designed to involve the local community, improve
communication between protected area managers
and the public, and make the process more
inclusive for stakeholders have become increas -
ingly popular Currently, approaches such as State
of the Parks reports, annual reports, external
Wildlife rangers in
Zimbabwe.
117
The world's protected areas
There has been a sharp
increase In the
involvement of a range
of stal<eholders in
protected area planning
and management over
the last decade.
audits, national advisory committees, staketiolder
roundtables, and parliamentary debates are more
commonly used than they were a decade ago. More
than [vjo thirds of the survey respondents perceived
that these changes in accountability measures had
helped to achieve more effective protected area
management overall.
Protected area management plans Isee
Chapter 51 play an important role in effective
governance by holding decision makers accoun -
table to the public. More than two thirds of
respondents indicated that both the formation and
implementation of management plans were now
required by law, with these requirements having
changed over the last decade for about a third of the
agencies. However, public participation in the
creation of these plans is required by law by fewer
than half of the agencies, even though, for over a
third, this has changed over the last decade.
Influence
A variety of "players" are involved in the decision-
making process for protected area systems. Since
decision making ultimately drives management, a
variety of sources exert influence on the manage -
ment of protected areas. Survey respondents were
asked to estimate the influence of various forces on
decision making in 1992 and 2002. The results
indicate that the sphere of influence surrounding
the management of protected areas has increased.
In 1992, more than one third of respondents
perceived that global forces, local communities, the
private sector, and various stakeholders had no
influence on protected area decision making in their
country. By 2002, these proportions had decreased,
often dramatically For example, while in 1992, 41
percent of local communities had no influence, by
2002 this proportion had dropped to 2 percent.
Governance capacity building
Almost three quarters of protected area agencies
have programs in place to improve the capacity of
their staff, including workshops, seminars, and
collaboration with scientific organizations.
Capacity-building programs are also increasingly
common among stakeholder groups and within
other government agencies closely related to the
management of protected areas.
Nonetheless managers recognize significant
gaps in training opportunities. The results suggest a
variety of training needs for protected area agencies
including: environmental education; community
involvement; park planning and administration;
enforcement and conflict management; and
detailed training in of remote sensing and
geographical information systems IGISI.
118
Protected areas in the wider context
Funding
Funding is a critical component of effective gover-
nance, as adequate funding allovi/s managers to
fulfill protected area objectives by meeting tfieir
operating, research, and staff salary requirements.
Thus, the degree and strength of financial support
that a protected area agency receives strongly influ -
ence, and are strongly influenced by, governance.
The survey highlighted several trends relating to the
funding of protected area systems during
1992-2002. The proportion of total funds provided
by both government agencies and private donors
decreased during this period, while non-
governmental organizations and user fees provided
an increased amount of funding.
Significant changes in the overall budgets of
protected area agencies also occurred between
1992 and 2002. Twenty-six percent of survey
respondents indicated that the protected area
budget decreased during the period, U percent
suggested it had remained the same, while 60
percent saw budget increases. Despite these
increases, respondents indicated that the number,
size, and complexity of protected areas had
increased during the period; the use of the
protected areas had increased; and the respon-
sibilities of the protected area agencies had
increased as well. Almost two thirds of respondents
suggested that, as a result, the budget for their
protected area did not keep pace with the growth
and additional use of the system, and stressed that
additional funding is required to ensure the
maintenance of protected area values.
Current and future challenges
In addition to highlighting the main trends in
protected area governance, it is important to
assess whether such changes have led to more
effective decision mal<ing and management
overall. More than 90 percent of respondents felt
that the governance of their protected area system
was more effective in 2002 than in 1992.
Respondents were also asked about the main
challenges to protected area governance and to
identify the strategies that may be required to
address these challenges. The main challenges
over the next decade included |in descending order
of frequency of mention):
J the involvement of, and cooperation with,
stakeholder groups;
□ obtaining adequate funding;
Zi achieving institutional transformation within
protected area agencies and improving
relationships between government bodies;
□ ensuring adequate and effective training of
park management and personnel (capacity
building);
G enforcement of protected area rules, policies,
regulations, and mandates.
The main strategies required to address these
challenges included:
□ securing funds on an ongoing basis;
J increasing capacity-building and training
opportunities for park staff and managers at
all levels;
Q increasing the involvement of local
communities and providing adequate educ-
ation opportunities for stakeholder groups;
^ promoting collaborative efforts between
protected area agencies and various govern-
ment agencies related to protected areas;
~i improving accountability and providing trans-
parent decision making for protected areas.
Overall the survey has helped confirm many of the
suspected trends in governance with a greater
degree of stakeholder involvement in all aspects of
protected area management, greater use of
accountability mechanisms, growing influence of
global forces, and the need for more capacity
building and funding. The last decade has been a
period of rapid change, with many agencies
experiencing changes in legislation and policy
direction. Managers indicate that, overall, these
changes have led to more effective management, in
all likelihood the next decade will see a slowing
down and consolidation of these changes. There is a
need not only for change, but also for a degree of
stability, to allow managers opportunity to learn
from these changes and adopt the most effective
governance tools for the challenges they face.
119
The world's protected areas
Chapter 5
The functions and processes of
protected area nnanagennent
Contributors: M. Lockwood and C- Worboys: The role of rangers-. D. Zellen Developing capacity: J. Marsh: Evaluating
management effectiveness: M- Hackings, F. Leverington, 5. Stolton. and N. Dudley.
To manage protected areas effectively requires
organizations, individuals, or communities ttiat
operate under a recognized set of policies,
powers, and/or traditions. A variety of protected
area management organizations exist for this pur-
pose. International coordinating bodies also exist
to promote conventions and other means of
establishing protected areas. They develop and
disseminate effective management standards,
strategies, and sl<iUs.
An understanding of management processes
is fundamental to successful management, partic-
ularly with respect to government, co-managed,
and private protected areas. Management is about
people. It is a process through which goals are
achieved. It involves coordinating all human and
technical resources to accomplish specific results.
The establishment of a protected area is just
the start of the process for achieving the objectives
for which it was reserved. Active management is
required. There is a multiplicity of threats and other
actions that need to be dealt with to maintain the
purpose and integrity of protected areas
(MacKinnon et at. 1986; Brandon, Redford, and
Sanderson, 1998; Van Schaik et ai. 2002; Du Toil,
Rogers, and Biggs, 20031. The phenomenon of
"paper parks" - where protected areas are desig-
nated but never managed - is recognized as a
serious issue (Dudley, Hockings, and Stolton, 19991.
Simply designating protected areas does not ensure
their survival, nor guarantee that social and
economic benefits are derived from them.
It is therefore worthwhile to consider the
general process of management, as well as how
management concepts can be applied specifically
to protected areas. The four basic management
functions are planning, organizing, leading,
and controlling (Bartol et at, 1998; Robbins e(
ai. 20031.
Planning
Planning is commonly undertaken at three levels of
detail within an organization. An organization
cannot achieve its primary goal unless each level of
management carries out the appropriate level of
planning. Theorists of management often prescribe
a top-down system whereby senior executives turn
the organization's goals into a series of high-level
"strategic" plans. These plans, as they pass down
the hierarchy, are translated first into a series of
"tactical" and then "operational" plans, which finally
become the instructions to the frontline staff (Bartol
et ai, 19981. Such a system can only work if each
level in the agency clearly understands its role and
is provided with the freedom to manage.
Organizing
As a management function, organizing is concerned
with how managers allocate and arrange human
and other resources to enable plans to be imple-
mented (Bartol et ai, 1998). It involves managers
determining the range of tasks to be performed and
allocating the available resources to obtain the best
results most efficiently. Organizing never stops. In a
fast-changing world, managers and staff are
constantly refining how their organizations work
towards required goals.
Demands on protected area agencies are
somewhat different from those facing most
organizations. There is a need to ensure other
public and private sector organizations are aware of
these differences, and that standard organizational
120
The functions and processes of protected area management
5 Chape
Te Wahipounamu, South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, South Island, New Zealand.
121
The world's protected areas
models are not inappropriately applied to undertake
protected area management. Some of the special
cliaracteristics are listed here:
□ Protected area lands and waters are dynamic,
living systems, and the dynamics of natural
events are superimposed on the routine
bureaucratic timetable of events.
Q Protected areas are often rugged and remote,
requiring special management needs related
to organizational time and resource allocation,
as well as staff competencies and capacities.
Q Protected areas are 2i4-hours-a-day, seven-
days-a-weel< operations, and operational
matters that arise on protected area lands or
waters often need a rapid response.
Q Terrestrial protected areas are usually
surrounded by neighbors, and, again, a round-
the-clock response capability is usually
required.
□ Protected areas are used by a wide range of
recreational and other users, with peak use
periods often clashing with peak incident
periods.
□ Unplanned incidents, such as fires, are normal
occurrences, and they may cut across
bureaucratic process timetable events.
Q The practical and experiential knowledge
accumulated by protected area staff is crucial
for wise decision making.
□ Protected areas need planning and manage-
ment investments that are continuous and
long term - much longer than election and
budget cycles, for example.
Leading
Leading involves influencing others' work behavior
towards achieving organizational goals IBartol
ef a/., 1998). In the process of leading, effective
managers become catalysts in encouraging
innovation. Leaders kindle the dynamic spirit
needed for success. How well an organization per-
forms depends on the motivation and commitment
of staff.
Controlling
Controlling is concerned with monitoring the
performance of an organization against manage-
ment benchmarks. Managers need to set perform-
ance measures and the criteria for how they will be
evaluated. Controls help managers and staff cope
with uncertainty, detect irregularities, identify
opportunities, handle complex situations, and de-
centralize authority IBartol ef a/., 1998; Robbins et
al.. 20031. The basic process involves establishing
standards, measuring performance, and comparing
performance to those standards. It also involves
responding with corrective actions.
OBTAINING AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Obtaining and managing data is essential for most
protected area management. Knowledge is
synthesized from information derived from data
analysis. Data on visitor numbers, behavior, and
attitudes, for example, are collected and stored.
These data provide information about comparative
visitor use of resources and responses to
management actions and this can be used to help
managers prioritize investment decisions in
relation to the provision of infrastructure and
services for visitors. Vital to this process is an
information management system that provides a
framework for collecting and analyzing data of
importance to protected area management. This is
not a simple process and often considerable
resources and expert knowledge need to be
invested in information management systems.
Where there are already sufficient reliable and
relevant data, managers need to know how to find
and organize them, otherwise they need to arrange
or commission research to produce the data.
Managers need data management skills to Identify
the facts relevant to a given decision. They must be
able to spot the gaps where more research is
needed and to interpret data, especially where there
are no "black or white" conclusions. Managers
should be familiar with different types of data, the
different ways they may be accessed or organized,
and the different places where they may be
collected and stored.
A range of information is required for
managing protected areas, from detailed scientific
knowledge of flora and fauna to visitation figures
and financial records. Information requirements
include physical inventory, biological inventory,
environmental condition, cultural inventory, social
and land-use history, visitor use, non-recreational
uses, socio-economic costs and benefits, and
infrastructure and facilities.
Accurate and comprehensive data are crucial
as is the capacity to store and retrieve them quickly
and simply. This is true at local, state, national, and
international levels. Local systems are just as
important as the more sophisticated information
systems that cover national and international
122
The functions and processes of protected area management
areas. Research collections, even In the simplest
form, are valuable aids for managers. The larger
systems are used more for setting priorities and
close comarative analysis. By contrast, local data
are used directly by local managers as a basis for
the actions they take. The development of a local
information system and establishing databases on
which they depend, is of vital importance.
Electronic systems for storing and retrieving
data range from the simple to the sophisticated.
Information can be stored using a range of
computer programs and hardware, and there are as
many ways of retrieving information, especially with
the use of the internet and electronic library and
journal catalogues. Researchers have developed a
range of systems for accessing this information.
Ideally, individual protected area managers
should also have a well-developed Information
management system. For example, German Tech-
nical Cooperation, in conjunction with the Uganda
Wildlife Authority lUWAl, has developed a manage-
ment information system, termed MIST, to provide
managers and planners at all levels with timely and
up-to-date information for planning, decision-
making, and evaluation (see Figure 5.1). All users
have easy access to a central database through the
local area network, or by using digital data transfer
or zip-disks. The system Integrates information on
the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of
wildlife conservation as well as tourism data, and
literature and address databases. IvllST includes
data collected by frontline staff, air surveillance,
communities, and researchers. Practical data
sheets have been generated for use by ranger law-
enforcement patrols and by communities. Outputs
from MIST Include monthly/quarterly/annual
reports, and routine or specific requests for Inform-
ation. MIST Improves management and measures
management effectiveness by providing baseline
data for planning and Information tor decision
making, as well as monitoring and evaluation of
annual operations and management plans, and
creating a culture of Information exchange. MIST
has also been adapted for use in two national parks
in Cambodia (Schmitt and Sallee, 20021.
In general, obtaining and managing infor-
mation for protected area management should be
based on the following principles.
□ Effective stewardship requires the best
available information on all aspects of
protected areas and their surrounding
environments, including natural heritage,
cultural heritage, economics, and social
aspects such as visitor values, attitudes, and
behavior. It Is critical to understand the
limitations of the data.
□ Access to and the ability to use the most
relevant, recent, and cutting-edge information
is vital In achieving management objectives.
Zi A systematic approach to collecting, organ-
izing, storing, accessing, and analyzing data Is
fundamental to delivering useful Information.
Recent advances, such as GIS and electronic
databases, are important tools.
□ Research Is a core function of protected
area management and should be facilitated
by protected area organizations. Research
priorities should be clearly documented.
Research partnerships should be developed
with universities, science organizations, and
other research providers.
Zi Monitoring llncluding the appropriate
selection of indicators] provides critical
Information for evaluating progress, under-
standing the consequences of management
actions, and establishing the basis for
adaptive management.
□ Processes should be in place to ensure that
Information Is easily accessible to all
interested parties. It needs to be recognized
that those accessing the data have different
levels of skill and access, and hence the
information needs to be provided in different
formats.
□ Agencies should ensure that staff have the
capability to access, understand. Interpret, and
apply Information made available from
research, monitoring, and other sources.
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
In essence, planning is concerned with the future,
and, In particular, future courses of action. Planning
Is a process for determining "what should be"
(usually defined by a series of objectives], and for
selecting actions that can help achieve objectives.
Planning can occur at various geographic scales
and for different planning goals.
Land use planning is the process of deciding in
a broad sense which areas of land will be used for
what purpose. Including the designation of pro-
tected areas. This may be undertaken at a national,
state, or regional scale.
Area management planning is concerned with
how to manage these areas once their land-use
123
The world's protected areas
FIGURE 5.1: DATA AND INFORMATION FLOW AND USER ACCESS IN THE UWA MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM
MINISTRY
Data
Management
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Management
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Management
* *
PROTECTED AREAS
Management
KEY
Data provision. Data entry and data import lonly protected areas and UWA HQI
Database reptication
Information for ttie management cycle - maps, graphics, tables, reports
Access to information at protected area level
Access to the information system (UWA computer network)
Access to the information system through direct dial-in and wireless link
Source: Schmitt and Sallee, 2002
designation has been determined. A park
management plan for a national park is an example
of an area management plan. Both land-use and
area management planning typically deal with a
wide range of management issues.
Site planning deals with design details
associated with, for example, the development of a
visitor facility. A park management plan might
recommend the establishment of a camping area of
a certain standard In a particular location to provide
for a specified number of people. A separate and
subsidiary site plan will specify the location and
design of access, barriers, campsites, toilets, and
so on within the camping area.
Functional planning focuses on a particular
Issue, for example, fire management or conserving
a significant species.
Organizational planning is concerned with the
purpose, structure, and procedures of a manage-
ment agency. Within an organization responsible
for managing natural areas there may be several
levels and types of management planning doc-
uments and activities. If the organization Is working
well, all these activities and documents should be
126
The functions and processes of protected area management
coordinated and Integrated. For example, the
objectives of a plan for an individual park should
relate to, and be consistent with, a plan at a higher
level such as a regional, tactical, or corporate plan.
A corporate plan Identifies an organization's
collective goals, objectives, policies, and activities,
and provides a context and guidelines for area
management and functional plans.
There are many other types of planning and
related activities associated with establishing and
managing protected areas. Examples include
impact assessment, economic planning, financial
planning, business planning, species recovery
planning, and incident planning. Here we will focus
on area management planning.
There are several reasons why it is necessary
to plan for the management of protected areas. In
general, planning can help conserve a resource
while providing for its appropriate use. More
specific reasons for embarking on a planning
project include:
□ meeting global responsibilities under such
agreements as the Convention on Biological
Diversity;
□ meeting statutory obligations;
□ directing management towards achieving the
goals established in legislation or elsewhere;
Q refining broad goals into specific, achievable
objectives;
Q facilitating the making of sound decisions;
□ facilitating the resolution of conflicts over
resource management;
□ aiding communication between different levels
within a hierarchical organization, eg. between
top-level staff and front-line staff such as
rangers who are often responsible for on-
ground implementation of actions;
□ providing continuity of management despite
staff changes;
□ making explicit decisions and the means by
which they were arrived at - important
components of management that might
otherwise remain hidden;
□ giving the community, interested groups, and
individuals an opportunity to take part in
decisions;
□ providing for public accountability.
Protected area management planning has gone
through several phases. Plans in the 1970s and
early 1980s tended to be dominated by extensive
inventories of natural and cultural resources. They
were developed with little community participation
and the data collection effort tended to be at the
expense of strategic considerations and subs-
tantive management decisions. From the mid-
1980s until the early 1990s, plans were more foc-
used on specific management objectives and
actions, often framed by a zoning scheme.
Community participation also became an
important component of planning processes.
While these plans provided more management
guidance than the earlier plans, they often quickly
became out of date, and were generally written
with little regard for available management
resources. They tended to be "wish lists' rather
than realistic management prescriptions. Such
rigidity and implementation difficulties meant that
they often "sat on the shelf" and so did little to
guide day-to-day management.
As a reaction to these failings, and under the
influence of wider trends, such as the increasing
popularity of strategic planning derived from
business management, plans from the mid-1990s
were typically much leaner documents. They
articulated a strategic direction, but often did not
detail specific outcomes or management decisions.
Such plans were politically expedient in that, in the
absence of any performance measures, agencies
could not be held to account. Their lack of specificity
meant that they were also of little use in guiding
management. Of course specific decisions were still
needed - these tended to be made in within-agency
operational planning processes that took place out
of the public gaze.
We are now entering an era where plans are
attempting to address these various limitations.
State-of-the-art planning now seeks to produce
relatively short strategic documents that
nonetheless contain a realistic set of objectives to
enable performance evaluation, as well as actions
that, in the immediate future, are considered the
best options to meet the objectives. Ideally, the
plans are also flexible enough to allow modification
of actions on the basis of experience and new
information, as well as some adjustment of
objectives and performance measures.
Important influences on the approaches that
are adopted include agency traditions, the pre-
vailing mode of public policy development, instit-
utional structures, and the intellectual traditions
most influencing the people directing the planning
process. There are four major approaches to a
planning project: rational comprehensive; incre-
125
The world's protected areas
mental; adaptive; and participatory IBriassouUs,
1989). These are rarely used in their pure form - in
general, planning projects can be described as of
mixtures of them them all. The approach or mixture
of approaches adopted will determine the particular
stages undertaken in the planning process, as well
as the relative importance given to each stage.
Planning is often connected with the word
"process". This means that planning is not simply
an event or an outcome. Planning is best seen as
an interrelated sequence of stages. These stages
are linked in a dynamic fashion - the interactions
between them may occur in one or more directions
and change over time. In addition, while there may
be a clearly defined starting point, it is often
difficult to define an end point. Indeed, many
planning practitioners emphasize the adaptive
nature of planning, with the need to regularly
review the success and relevance of both a
particular plan and even the planning process
itself. An illustration of a typical planning process is
given in Figure 5.2,
There is no consensus on the best approaches
and processes - there is also no single best way to
undertake a planning project. Nonetheless, there
are some basic principles of good practice.
1, Planners should consciously adopt a suitable
mix of planning approaches that are:
□ participatory at a level that matches the
interests and concerns of stakeholders;
□ cognizant of the multi-value, multicultural
context of protected area management;
□ rational and participatory in the collection and
identification of information to inform
management;
□ rational in the application of formal pro-
cedures to assess any changes in land use or
major investment issues;
□ rational and participatory in the assessment
of options and selection of preferred actions;
□ adaptive in the implementation, assessment,
refinement, and modifications of objectives
and actions;
□ incremental in addressing urgent or minor
management requirements that, given infor-
mation, organizational, or resource const-
raints, cannot be dealt with in any other way
2. Effective linkages should be established across
planning levels such that:
□ strategic planning occurs at the organ-
izational and regional levels, including
specification of goals and guidelines;
□ specific planning occurs at the local level,
including development of measurable and
realistic objectives that are framed in the
context of strategic goals and have clear
performance indicators;
□ explicit linkages are present between
objectives and actions and outcomes;
□ actions are consistent with strategic guide-
lines, and at a level of detail that allows for
consistent interpretation and application.
3. Effective implementation of actions arises from:
□ availability of suitably trained staff to guide
the planning process and implement the plan;
□ links between actions, resources, the budget
process, and performance evaluation;
□ definitions of roles and lines of responsibility
in the managing agency regarding imple-
mentation of particular actions;
Zl works programs that are linked with the plan,
contain dates for completion of actions, and
are fed back into the performance evaluation.
i. Formal evaluation of success or otherwise is an
essential part of a successful planning process
and involves:
□ lines of responsibility in the managing agency
regarding evaluating performance against
objectives;
Q mechanisms for formal recognition (and
removal from the plan] of objectives that
have been met and completed;
□ mechanisms for addressing unmet
objectives and/or actions, including, where
appropriate, their modification;
□ clear guidelines for reviewing plans,
objectives, and actions, including partic-
ipants, responsibilities, and periodicity of
revisions.
FINANCE AND ECONOMICS
Although the number of community conserved, co-
managed and private protected areas are
increasing most protected areas are still managed
by government agencies. As such, they rely heavily
on government funds - although these are often
limited in many developing countries. In general,
this situation should continue. Governments must
fund protected areas because of the public good
benefits that they provide and to maintain the
intrinsic values of natural areas. Funding to
126
The functions and processes of protected area management
FIGURE 5.2: A TYPICAL PLANNING PROCESS
Establish mechanisms and structures
that enable all stakeholders to engage
with the process
1
Collect relevant data
\
Identify set of issues
y^
^^
Assess the degree to which each
action contributes towards achieving
the objectives
Develop ob|ectives that address
selected issues
'
Implement the actions
Identify possible actions loptionsl that may
be effective in meeting the objectives
'
Develop an implementation program that
integrates the selected actions and
experiments
Select one or more options for each issue
\
X
Establish an experimental design
to enable the effectiveness of the
actions to be tested
government departments is typically provided
through annual appropriations from a provincial
or national treasury. When available, these appro-
priations are usually divided into recurrent and
capital expenditure components. Agencies res-
ponsible for protected area management may
also be able to attract support funding through
various grant and donor programs, especially in
developing countries.
The private sector Isee Box U.\\, while making
a contribution, cannot and should not be expected to
meet many of the costs associated with protected
area management. Non-use values of natural
areas, for example, are pure public goods. They
reflect the value people place on the existence of
such an area, regardless of the importance of other
values related to consumption, either of products
Isuch as timber) or experiences (such as
recreation). Such values would be undersupplied by
private nature reserves.
127
The world's protected areas
However, political and fiscal realities mean it
is unlikely that the funding needed to satisfactorily
meet all protected areas acquisition and manage-
ment requirements wilt ever be made available by
governments. Financial resources often constrain
effective management of protected areas and fall
well short of needs. Increasing taxes is always
politically difficult, even with community support for
additional conservation expenditure, and there are
always many other calls on government from
health, education, social welfare, and so on. In fact,
the proportion of public funding going into protected
areas is in decline in many countries (lUCN, 2000).
There are opportunities to expand on this
public funding base and generate further revenue to
meet agency needs. Funding sources include
national environmental funds, multilateral banks.
Global Environment Facility, debt swaps, bilateral
development cooperation agencies, philanthropic
foundations, non-governmental organizations,
grants from private foundations, corporate don-
ations, and individual donations IIUCN, 20001. Both
public and private revenue need to be optimized,
with public revenue linked to public goods and
private revenues to private goods. While govern-
ments will continue to have a primary role in
ensuring the supply of pure public goods, the
private sector is becoming increasingly important
for providing visitor services and facilities, and for
contributing to resource management and the rest-
oration of sites. The provision of public incentives to
support conservation activities on private property
is also crucial. Further opportunities exist for
protected area management agencies to develop
constructive partnerships with the private sector
Business plans are used to guide business
development activities. They are being more widely
adopted by conservation agencies. Business plans
must be developed in the context of a wider man-
agement plan that has clearly defined goals and
objectives (see above). This ensures that generating
revenue is a means toward the end of more effective
management, and does not become an end in itself.
A key component of a typical business plan is a
financial plan. The financial plan determines the
amount and timing of funding required to achieve
management objectives, and identifies income
sources to meet these needs. Financial planning
differs from budgeting in that it is more focused on
forecasting-required funding, as well as the best
potential sources to meet short, medium, and long-
term needs.
Different sources of funding have different
characteristics: some are more reliable; some
sources are easier to raise; and some can be used
freely according to management priorities, while
others come with strings attached, such as inability
to pay for recurrent costs. The short term 13-5 years
in most cases) nature of most donor funding,
including the GEF, often limits its effectiveness in
producing sustainable protected area management
outcomes. Some funding mechanisms take a long
time and a lot of effort to establish; they therefore
do not provide a short-term return, but over the
longer term they offer the possibility of steady,
reliable financing to meet recurrent costs. A good
financial plan identifies these characteristics, and
builds a revenue stream that matches both the
short- and long-term requirements of the protected
area, or protected area system IIUCN, 2000).
Pricing services and facilities
Conservation of natural and cultural resources is
rightly regarded as a community service obligation
for government agencies, and a user-pays system
is not applicable to secure the continued supply of
these values IQPWS, 2000). However, the costs of
providing appropriate infrastructure, facilities, and
services, repairing environmental damage, and
limiting congestion are generated by private con-
sumption of protected area values. The beneficiary-
and polluter-pays principles suggest that these
costs should not be borne by the taxpayer, but by
users who either gain benefits from the infra-
structure, facilities, and services (beneficiaries pay)
or impose environmental or congestion costs on
others (polluter pays).
Resource managers are under increasing
pressure to adopt user-pays approaches and, where
possible, to recover the costs of providing recreation
and other services. Managers should be able to
justify their pricing of recreation goods and
services, so that decisions are neither arbitrary nor
inequitable (Loomis and Walsh, 1997). Some
agencies charge a fixed fee for all parks, some
charge for only certain parks, and some have fees
for particular uses or value-added services.
Demand for the recreation opportunities aff-
orded by protected areas is likely to continue to
rise. This growth is promoted by, among other
things, enhanced information availability about
the attractions of protected areas and improved
access and transport connections, together with a
growing consumer preference for "quality-of-life
128
The functions and processes of protected area management
experiences", Including outdoor recreation.
Increased visitor numbers will impose additional
costs on protected area management agencies.
Services and facilities (car parks, walking tracks,
toilets, visitor centers, and so on) will require
upgrading and expansion. Environmental damage,
and therefore the need to expend resources on
rehabilitation, will increase. Costs may also be
imposed on visitors in areas of high use, as
congestion diminishes the quality of recreational
experiences.
These increased costs make the problem of
who should pay for them particularly pressing. Non-
users effectively subsidize users when fees are not
charged. Subsidies may be justified to enable low-
income earners to visit natural areas. However, at
sites primarily visited by high-income earners, the
poor may be worse off as they subsidize the free
entry of rich visitors through their taxes. A related
issue arises when sites have a significant number of
foreign visitors who are wealthier than the local
people - an issue when visitors from developed
countries visit developing ones iLindberg, 19981.
Recreation activities are not the only uses that
impose environmental costs. Some protected areas
are subject to honey production, fishing, cattle
grazing, and other extractive uses. Again, the user-
pays principle has potential application here.
However, while local communities may benefit from
such uses, they often also have to forgo potential
benefits to ensure biodiversity and other public-
good values are maintained. Equity and strategic
considerations make it generally inappropriate to
impose additional costs on locals.
As noted in Chapter 1, protected areas provide
a range of ecosystem services that benefit people
some distance away For example, the quality of
water supply is often partly due to the catchment
protection afforded by national parks and other
reserves some distance from the city In this case,
applying the beneficiary-pays principle is not easy,
but there are examples where a mechanism has
been developed. In 1998, Inversiones La Manguera
Sociedad Anonima (INMANI, a Costa Rican hydro-
electric company, signed a contract with the
Monteverde Conservation League IMCL] to pay for
ecological services provided by the Bosque Eterno
de los Nihos IChildren's Eternal Rain Forest), a
22 000-hectare private reserve managed by MCL.
Approximately 3 000 hectares of the protected
forest Is part of a watershed that Is used by INMAN
for generating electric power Recognizing the ben-
efits they receive from protection of this watershed,
INMAN entered Into an agreement with MCL to pay
for the protection of the ecological services provided
by Bosque Eterno de los Nifios IIUCN, 19981.
The level of charges in a user-pays system
should be determined by a clear set of objectives.
An agency's choice of revenue objectives can vary
according to the type of value and the beneficiary.
Objectives for developing a user-fees policy may
include:
□ equitable allocation of costs;
J cost recovery;
J economic efficiency through identification of a
market rate;
□ generation of revenue in excess of costs so
that other activities such as biodiversity
conservation can be financed;
^ improving facilities and management;
Zi generation of foreign exchange and/or tax
revenues from tourist purchases;
J demand management - that is, using fees to
limit or redistribute the number of visitors, in
order to reduce environmental damage,
congestion, or user conflicts ILindberg, 1998;
QPWS, 20001.
The cost of collecting user fees Is an important
factor In establishing a pricing policy. Costs
associated with the implementation and
administration of a user-pays system are called
transaction costs. There is no point charging user
fees if the transaction costs are such that they
substantially offset the revenue collected. For a
park with many entrances, the transaction costs
associated with establishing numerous fee
collection stations would be high. For a park with
Differential pricing for
access and use can
help spread the use
of and impact on
protected areas.
129
The world's protected areas
Protected areas provide
a range of ecosystem
services that benefit
people some distance
away, for example, the
quality of water supply.
low annual use, the revenue generated would be
low. In both cases, transactions costs are likely to be
a high proportion of total costs. Full recovery of
these costs is difficult to justify, relative to the value
of the damage being caused and/or the services
being provided. Of course, transaction costs are
also dependent on the collection method employed
and, with changing technology, opportunities may
arise to significantly reduce transaction costs.
If demand management is the objective, peal<-
load pricing can be used to control visitor numbers
or redistribute them over different time periods.
Peal<-load pricing refers to the practice of charging
different prices at different times for the same
service. The cost of having excess capacity during
off-peal< periods can be covered by increasing the
amount charged to peak users. Charging higher
fees for prime camping sites can help to spread use
more evenly Higher peak-period prices can also be
used to perform a rationing function.
Another common practice is price discrim-
ination - that is, charging different prices for the
same goods or services where the price differences
are not proportional to differences in costs. There
are a number of reasons why price discrimination
may be used. For equity reasons, certain individuals
may be charged low prices, or given goods or
services free of charge. Such equity-based price
discrimination may apply to the very old or very
young, local residents, or low-income earners.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration lies at the heart of a protected
area organization's capacity to operate. As is the
case with much in this chapter, this section is
primarily written with a government or major non-
governmental organization in mind.
People are needed to implement an
organization's primary mission. Staff land contr-
actors] often need to be hired and paid. They need a
base from which to operate. Hence offices and
workshops must be either purchased, constructed,
or leased. People need to be mobile and to have
access to equipment and materials. This requires
the hire or purchase of vehicles, plant, and other
equipment. Staff also need a supportive operating
framework, which ranges from employment
contracts to skills training.
All of this requires well-designed admin-
istration systems. Budgets need to be secured and
managed. Bills need to be paid. Staff need to be
treated fairly Workplaces need to be safe. Systems
need to be in place to evaluate and monitor staff
performance so that professional standards remain
high. Numerous routine administrative tasks and
systems are needed to support the conservation of
a protected area. Organizations need to operate
fairly and equitably, and to be accountable.
For long-term success, an organization must
invest in capacity building and development of its
staff. Staff across an organization need to be up to
date with advances in computer software, legisla-
tion, project management techniques, accounting
systems, and other organizational aspects. Training
helps create an internal culture focused on constant
improvement. It can also be used to give staff
background information on the history of the
organization. Training is usually administered
through the organization's human resources
section. Capacity building for a protected area org-
anization needs to be strategic and long term. It
should be a systems approach linked to organiz-
ational needs and the demography of the workforce.
Local area managers may also run their own
training programs, for example to train new staff in
basic operational skills such as using a chainsaw.
130
J
The functions and processes of protected area management
operating a four-wheel drive, or conducting cust-
omer service. Training needs of staff sfiould be
recognized in performance development agree-
ments or other similar arrangements with their
supervisors. Most organizations foster such an
environment of continuous learning, and they
reward or explicitly recognize their staff's
vocational training. Staff may also benefit from
time-release schemes that allow them to be
seconded to other organizations or undertake
specialist study or project work.
Asset management should be part of an
integrated management system. Assets are items
of value that an organization owns or controls.
Assets include constructed items such as roads,
sewer lines, bridges, buildings, trails, and various
cultural heritage structures, as well as tools,
vehicles, or even intellectual property. Most
organizations have a range of assets to manage,
and typically these are inventoried. Asset
management systems allow managers to predict
when assets will need to be refurbished or replaced
(maintenance cycles!. They can allow for these
expenses in their annual budget. They can also keep
track of the total value of assets, which is important
in accrual accounting.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
The major objectives of protected area managers
are to ensure biodiversity and cultural heritage
conservation. At the same time, sustainable man-
agement principles need to be adhered to, as the
very process of conservation management con-
sumes energy and natural resources and produces
wastes, thus impacting upon the global environ-
ment. Sustainable protected area management
considers these impacts and focuses on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy
consumption, minimizing waste production, and
ensuring maximum benefits to local communities.
Protected area managers operate within the wider
context of environmental management and, as
such, there are a number of International environ-
mental policies that govern their operations.
Protected area organizations should be
leaders in the field of sustainable management
practice. Sustainable environmental management
needs to be part of the dally operations of protected
area management. Managers have a responsibility
to address environmental issues, provide lead-
ership, and be accountable to the community
Reduction In the use of fossil-based energy
decreases the amount of greenhouse gases
generated; consuming less water will assist in
maintaining the health of catchment and river
systems; and creating less waste helps preserve
our ecosystems. Protected area managers are
accountable for the resources that they utilize and
they have a responsibility to limit the environmental
impacts of their activities.
Strategies to reduce greenhouse gases and
ensure sustainabilify outcomes need to be
developed and implemented for park management
operations. An important component of this is
environmental performance assessment and
monitoring. Energy, water, and other resource use,
waste production, and greenhouse gas emissions
need to be assessed for operations. These can then
be benchmarked and continual improvement
systems implemented. Such sustainablllty assess-
ment should be an Integral part of park man-
agement planning and operations.
Sustainable development criteria need to be
part of the planning, design, and construction of
new facilities. Issues considered include design for
natural lighting, ventilation, and heating; the use of
Haleakala National
Park, Hawaii.
131
The world's protected areas
renewable energy sources; the use of recycled
materials; water minimization, recycling, and
retention systems; and life cycle assessments of
building products to reduce the ecological footprint
of a development and its continued operation.
Environmental performance reporting on a
regular basis will ensure that management
continues to operate at the highest sustainability
standards and that protected areas assist in
educating the community on sustainability prin-
ciples and practices. Such performance achieve-
ments should be made publicly available.
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Operations are essential activities and tasks that
underpin the conservation management of pro-
tected areas. Managed correctly, operations directly
help in achieving conservation outcomes. They are
the major difference between so-called "paper
parks" (legally reserved areas with no active man-
agement) and parks that are effectively managed
and contributing to conservation outcomes.
Operations management is defined as the
management of the productive processes that
convert inputs into goods, services, and activities
(Slack, Chambers, and Johnston, 2001 litis consid-
ered to be part of the "controlling" function of man-
agement, because much of the emphasis is on
regulating the productive processes that are critical
to reaching organizational goals (Bartol etat., 19981.
Protected area management operations are those
inputs, processes, and systems that directly con-
tribute to the achievement of conservation out-
comes. Such operations should recognize the
following principles.
Q Effective protected area management
operations are an essential and integral part
of the conservation of natural and cultural
heritage. Protected areas require active,
effective, and continuous management if the
purposes for which they were reserved are to
be retained.
Q Operational standards, best-practice systems,
staff competencies, operational procedures,
on-site leadership, and operations team
discipline are all integral and essential parts
of effective protected area operational man-
agement,
□ Leadership, inclusiveness, and attention to
operational detail are essential parts of
successful operational management.
□ Research, operational performance monit-
oring, and adaptive management are essential
parts of successful operational management.
□ Local knowledge and local community
involvement is a fundamental part of an
operation.
MANAGING THREATS
The wide range of threats facing protected areas
was reviewed in Chapter 3. A number of these
threats are generated well beyond the boundaries
of individual protected areas, and their ultimate
resolution needs to be dealt with in the context of
national- and regional-level planning, and global
collaboration (such as threats from climate
change and pollution). However, the impact of
threats often needs to be dealt with and managed
at the individual protected area level, as well as
within the context of regional land-use planning
and development.
Management responses for dealing with
threats and unwanted change to maintain
conservation values may involve some or all of the
following (ACiUCN, 20021.
Q Regeneration, which involves the recovery
of natural integrity following disturbance
or degradation, with minimal human
intervention.
Q Restoration, which requires returning existing
habitats to a known past state or to an approx-
imation of the natural condition by repairing
degradation, by removing introduced species,
or by reinstatement.
□ Reinstatement, which means reintroduction to
a place of one or more species or elements of
habitat or geodiversity that are known to have
existed there naturally at a previous time, but
that can no longer be found at that place.
Q Enhancement, which involves introduction to a
place of additional individuals of one or more
organisms, species, or elements of habitat or
geodiversity that naturally exist there.
□ Preservation, which means maintaining the
biodiversity and/or an ecosystem of a place at
the existing stage of succession, or main-
taining existing geodiversity.
□ Modification, which involves altering a place to
suit proposed uses that are compatible with
the natural significance of the place.
J Protection, which requires taking care of a
place by maintenance and by managing
impacts to ensure that natural significance is
retained.
132
J
The functions and processes of protected area management
Maintenance, which involves continuous
protective care of the biological diversity and
geodiversity of a place.
CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT
As well as maintaining natural heritage, protected
areas are important for the perpetuation, repres-
entation, and conservation of cultural heritage
values. Cultural heritage values refer to qualities
and attributes possessed by places or items that
have aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social value
for past, present, and future generations. These
values may be seen in places and physical
features, but can also be associated with
intangible qualities such as people's associations
with or feelings for a place or item, or in other
elements such as cultural practices, knowledge,
songs, and stories. When natural elements of the
landscape acquire meaning for a particular group,
they may become cultural heritage. These may
include land forms, flora, fauna, and minerals
ISullivan, 20051.
Cultural heritage resources need active
management because they are essentially non-
renewable, and often perishable. They are
manifestations of past events, and only a limited
number of them were created. Their material fabric
also suffers with time, incidents, and disasters. If
destroyed, they may be copied or reconstructed, but
we cannot renew the spiritual, social, and historical
moments in which they were created. Each site may
be a unique physical manifestation of the activities,
ideologies, technologies, and social practices of a
particular place and time.
In most areas, natural and cultural heritage
are inextricably entwined. They form a continuum
rather than being separate entities. The interaction
between the natural and cultural heritage values of
a protected area add richness and depth to the story
of the place (Sullivan and Lennon, 20031.
Successful conservation of cultural heritage
requires:
□ an objective assessment of all the elements of
significance, both natural and cultural, of the
protected area;
□ development of policies and priorities, which
protect both the natural and cultural heritage
and strike a balance in cases of conflict;
□ close consultation with, and involvement of,
the people whose cultural heritage is
represented in the protected area;
□ development among park staff of specialized
skills, or access to specialized advice, to
effectively protect cultural heritage;
□ familiarity, on the part of the manager, with
best-practice methodology for cultural herit-
age identification and conservation.
TOURISM AND RECREATION
Tourism is travel away from home for recreation or
associated activities, and industries and services
that aim to satisfy the needs of tourists. Growth in
global tourism has been one of the great
phenomena of the late 20th and early 21st
centuries. In 2002, there were 715 million inter-
national arrivals worldwide - 22 million more than
in 2001 and 690 million more than in 1950
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2003). The World
Travel and Tourism Council (WTTCl has forecast
that the number of international arrivals will
increase to nearly 1.6 billion by 2020, despite a
potential scarcity of petroleum by this time
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2003; Mason 20031.
Many tourist destinations are protected areas.
In an era of (relatively! cheap petroleum-based
fuel, transport systems have delivered visitors
The demand for
the recreational
opportunities afforded
by protected areas
is forecast to rise
rapidly. Kaziranga
National Park World
Heritage Area, India.
133
The world's protected areas
BOX 5.1: THE ROLE OF RANGERS IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT
Sustaining the integrity of protected areas is a l<ey
function of any robust managennent regime and
differentiates between so-called "paper parks"
and those parks that truly make a contribution to
world conservation. Active management requires
negotiation and persuasion, and sometimes
coercion and enforcement. It needs to bring
together disparate and often conflicting aims and
aspirations for the good of the protected area and
its linkages to the wider landscape and adjacent
communities. When dealing with people, it also
needs a human face. At the grass roots level that
human face is usually the ranger*
The primary responsibility of the ranger is to
maintain the integrity of the protected area where
they work. In this context, ranger corps often form
the "Thin Green Line", preserving such areas from
destruction by outside forces. Many of the different
titles by which they are known throughout the
world, such as guardeparques, used throughout
Spanish-speaking Latin America, reflect their
guardian or custodian role.
Over time, however, the focus of the
ranger's role has expanded, reflecting a much
greater critical interface with both local and
broader communities. At any given time a
ranger may be: an environmental interpreter,
community liaison officer, field naturalist,
facilitator, and, when called for, rescuer or
enforcer. The ranger acts as a day-to-day bridge
in community liaison programs, developing key
partnerships and engendering a sense of
ownership for those living, visiting, and working
within protected areas. A central part of their role
includes the development and delivery of
environmental education, both in terms of the
protected area and wider conservation principles.
The ability of rangers to be seen as
"authoritative" and not "authoritarian" reflects
this increasingly complex role. It engenders a
feeling of approachability yet retains respect for
themselves and the area they are there to protect.
Rangers are also uniquely positioned and
qualified to implement, evaluate and advise
on the effectiveness of management and sus-
tainable development, and to monitor the health
of the area.
Many rangers have, through the course of
their careers, risen through the ranks to become
directors and executives of protected area
administrations, but for the most part the
dedication and invaluable work of rangers carries
on unrecognized, reflecting the vocational nature
of the job.
Lives on the Line
As guardians of often highly valuable natural or
cultural resources, rangers are all too frequently
faced with combating illegal commercial and non-
sustainable exploitation of these resources,
frequently at great personal risk. Regional conflict,
civil wars, and political upheaval have a profound
impact on protected areas, but even under these
circumstances rangers will be found at their posts.
In Mozambique, rangers stayed at their posts
throughout the civil war without getting paid.
Similar stories can be found elsewhere, not just in
Africa, where dedicated rangers have remained
resolutely in their parks throughout internal strife
and conflict, and all too often have paid for their
dedication with their lives.
In addition to human threats, rangers often
have to battle the elements and unforgiving terrain
at inopportune times, especially when involved in
activities such as search and rescue, wild fire
control or wildlife capture operations. Particularly
in the developing world, rangers often live and
work in remote and isolated areas, with minimal
logistical and institutional support. Far too often
they carry out their work without even the most
rudimentary equipment or uniform, and often go
without pay for months at a time.
quickly and efficiently to visitor destinations around
the world. Such tourism is important to the econ-
omies of many nations, and brings many benefits to
local communities. Managed responsibly, tourism
can provide many sustainable benefits to protected
areas, including opportunities for both education
and the appreciation of nature and cultural
heritage, as well as fostering a conservation
constituency (Eagles and McCool, 20021.
However, as noted in Chapter 3, tourism has
also led to conflicts and environmental impacts The
tourism industry's global bodies, the World Tourism
136
The functions and processes of protected area management
Patrolling Ta Phraya National Park in the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex World Heritage Area,
Thailand, on the border with Cambodia. Rangers have to contend with armed poachers and illegal
loggers and are at risk from land mines left over from the Cambodian conflict.
International Ranger Federation
Rangers need training, mentoring and knowledge
to support their efforts. Inadequate resources,
including linnited financial resources and a
shortage of skilled personnel, undermine an
area's integrity and management effectiveness.
Threats to biodiversity from climate change,
natural disasters, alien invasive species, and a
wide array of human activities and impacts also
pose distinct challenges.
The International Ranger Federation (IRF), a
world-wide Federation of National Ranger
Associations in over 53 countries, has been
instrumental in the development of key compet-
encies that define the areas of knowledge a ranger
must have, with the flexibility to be applied at
different levels to reflect differing geopolitical
contexts. The IRF is now actively engaged in the
dissemination of best practice and the raising of
professional standards, and using key
competencies as a benchmark for training and
mentoring programs in a number of areas around
the world. The strength of the Federation lies in
the fact that its member associations also reflect
regional differences, for example, allowing South
American rangers of one country to offer
mentoring to rangers working in other South
American countries. It also means that the IRF can
develop locally based prescriptions for generic
terminologies such as "area integrity". Since its
inception in 1992, the IRF has been successful in a
number of initiatives designed to reflect and raise
the standards of professionalism of rangers. It has
also been actively involved in the area of youth
development; for example, jointly hosting a Young
Conservationist Award with the lUCN World
Commission on Protected Areas.
* The IRF defines a ranger as "the person involved
in the practical protection and preservation of alt
aspects of wild areas, historical, and cultural sites.
Rangers provide recreational opportunities and
interpretation of sites while providing links
between local communities, protected areas, and
area administration. "
Organization (WTOl and WTTC, have responded
to the substantial environmental problems and
are aware that growth in tourism is dependent,
among other considerations, on the sustainability
of destinations. The WTO has contributed to inter-
national declarations on the environment.
environmental codes of ethics, guidelines, and
policies that promote sustainable tourism. The
strategic document. Blueprint for New Tourism,
was launched by the WTTC in 2003 (WTTC, 20031.
The strategy sets balancing economics with
environment, people, and cultures as a key goal.
135
The world's protected areas
BOX 5.2: DEVELOPING CAPACITY AND TRAINING FOR PROTECTED AREAS
The importance of developing capacity for
protected areas, at individual and institutional
levels and in the wider enabling environment,
has long been recognized. At individual-level
training - the enhancement of knowledge, skills
and competencies among individuals involved in
the running of protected areas - is fundamental
to developing capacity. There are a number of
initiatives at national, regional, and global levels
to provide training.
At national level a number of protected area
agencies, most but not all in developed countries,
offer ongoing training, mainly aimed at their own
staff. Examples include agencies in Australia,
Canada, Kenya, New Zealand, and the US. Training
in developing countries may be supported through
capacity-building projects funded by bilateral or
multilateral agencies such as the Global
Environment Facility. In addition, a number of
universities and colleges offer training in subjects
relevant to the design and management of
protected areas, often tailored to conditions in
their own countries.
Internationally, apart from the International
Ranger Federation, there is no agency primarily
responsible for overseeing training and to
produce a comprehensive international training
strategy for protected areas. However, various
initiatives have been undertaken, chiefly by lUCN
- the World Conservation Union, UNEP and
UNESCO. In 1996, the Global Task Force on
Training was established under the World
Commission on Protected Areas, but this has
never had the resources to be effective. In 2001,
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre prepared a
Global Training Strategy for World Heritage, and
in 2003, a strategic process for capacity building.
Some institutions offer courses aimed at an
international audience, such as the International
Short Course for Senior Park Managers, run
since 1998 by the Glynwood Centre in New York
State, USA, in cooperation with the US National
Parks Service. There are also a number of
regional training centres, some with a long
history, such as the Centre Agronomico Tropical
de Investigacion y Ensefiaza (CATIEI in Costa
Rica (established in 19731, the College of African
Wildlife Management at Mweka in Tanzania
(19631, the Garoua Wildlife College, Cameroon
(19701 and the Southern African Wildlife College
in Northern Province, South Africa (19971. In
addition there are several international
exchange programs for protected area staff
intended to facilitate training. One of the most
successful of these has been the Latin American
Technical Cooperation Network on National
Parks, other Protected Areas and Wildlife, which,
since its inception in 1983, has held over 40
workshops, trained scores of technical staff and
produced a large number of training documents
and manuals.
Despite these various initiatives, a number of
pervasive problems still need to be solved. These
include:
□ inadequate school or tertiary-level training
or education relevant to protected areas;
□ lack of a "training culture" in many protected
area agencies;
□ lack of resources;
□ ineffective training because of inappropriate-
ness to local conditions or lack of effective
targeting at recipients;
□ barriers to the application of what has been
learned in training;
Q unclear, unspecified and continuously
changing skill set required to manage
protected areas;
□ once trained, people often leave protected
area agencies, especially in developing
countries.
and indicated that "new tourism" should look
beyond short-term considerations to focus "on
benefits not only for people who travel, but also
for people in the communities they visit, and for
their respective natural, social and cultural
environments".
In 1983, Mexican architect and environ-
mentalist Hector Ceballos-Lascurain coined the
word "ecotourism". Ecotourism is now a major
segment of the tourism industry and a major growth
area. As often happens with an emerging phenom-
enon, it has several similar names: nature tourism.
136
The functions ano processes of protected area management
green tourism, adventure tourism, sustainable
tourism, appropriate tourism. In describing its
evolution. Honey (19991 noted that: "broadly stated,
the concept of ecotourism can be traced to four
sources: (1) scientific, conservation, and non-
governmental organization circles; (2) multilateral
aid institutions; (3J developing countries; and W the
travel industry and traveling public."
The term ecotourism implied a genuine
attempt to respect nature and to manage for the
future. It linked the tourism industry with the com-
munity's concern for the environment, and so was
popular with both environmentalists and managers.
Common sense dictated that it was simply not
sustainable for the tourism industry to degrade its
own destinations. Around the world, ecotourism has
been hailed as a panacea: a way to fund conservation
and scientific research, protect fragile and pristine
ecosystems, benefit rural communities, promote
development in poor countries, enhance ecological
and cultural sensitivity, instill environmental
awareness and a social conscience in the travel
industry, satisfy and educate the discriminating
tourist, and, some claim, build world peace. Although
green travel is being marketed as a win-win solution
for developing countries, the environment, the
tourist, and the travel industry, close examination
shows a much more complex reality
For Ceballos-Lascurain 11996), if an activity is
to be considered as ecotourism:
It should promote positive environmental
ethics and foster "preferred" behavior in its
participants.
It should not degrade the resource Ithat is, the
natural environment!.
Facilities and sen/ices may support the tourist's
encounter with the "intrinsic resource", but
should never become attractions in their own
right.
Ecotounsts should accept the environment as
it IS, not expecting it to change or be modified
for their convenience.
Ecotourism must benefit the wildlife and
environment, contributing to their sustain-
ability and ecological integrity (this may be
through the effects on the local community or
economy!.
It should provide a first-hand encounter with
nature. Visitor centers and on-site interpretive
slide-shows may be part of an ecotourism
activity only if they direct people to a first-hand
experience.
It should actively involve and benefit local
communities, thus encouraging them to value
their natural resources.
It should offer gratification through education
and/or appreciation rather than through thrill-
seeking or physical achievement.
It should involve considerable preparation, and
demand in-depth knowledge on the part of
leaders and participants.
Recreation, an aspect of park tourism, is also an
important part of the human experience of
protected areas (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999].
Visitors undertake an extraordinary diversity of
recreation activities within protected areas. Most
activities have a constituency that lobbies in
support of its continuation or expansion within the
protected area estate. Staff are often required to be
involved with facilities supporting bushwalking,
skiing, boating, canoeing, caving, four-wheel
driving, and a range of other activities. Adventure
recreation activities, such as canyoning, white-
water rafting, cross-country skiing, abseiling, ice
climbing, and rock climbing, may need manage-
ment attention for safety reasons (response to
emergencies in bad weather] and for potential
environmental impacts.
The tourism and recreation values of pro-
tected areas are influenced by a number of geo-
graphical, social, managerial, and biophysical
factors, including proximity and accessibility to
markets, cultural links, availability of services,
affordability, peace and stability, positive market
image, pro-tourism policies, and availability of
attractions (Weaver and Opperman, 2000). Visitor
attractions in protected areas may be natural
Diving tourism in
Jardines de la Reina
National Park, Cuba.
Low intensity, low
impact tourism can
bring considerable
benefits to local
communities, often in
turn leading to greater
efforts to protect the
environment.
137
The world's protected areas
The demands of an ever
increasing population
for commodities,
infrastructure and
services place pressure
on species and natural
and cultural spaces.
Orangutans \Pongo spp.)
are now iiigiily
endangered in the wild.
features or destinations witli more developed
facilities and services such as visitor centers,
boardwalks, and limestone "show caves". Artificial
attractions or high-impact, derived activities that
may diminish the natural or cultural heritage values
of protected areas are Inconsistent with the concept
and purpose of most protected areas.
The value of protected areas for tourism and
recreation use can be described in terms of
opportunity settings found within them. These can
be defined as the combination of physical (such as
scenery], biological Isuch as native plants and
animals), social (such as family, friends and/or
other visitors!, and managerial (such as the
facilities and regulations imposed at a setting)
conditions that give value to a place (Clarke and
Stankey, 1979). Managing for tourism and
recreation opportunity settings is typically
achieved through the management planning
process and the use of zoning and recreation
planning tools. Protected area managers, in
cooperation with other land managers, should
ensure that a spectrum of recreation settings is
available within a region. The setting of planning
limits for visitor destinations is also an essential
tool in sustainable visitor-use management.
EVALUATING MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
Management effectiveness evaluation measures
the degree to which a protected area is protecting
Its values and achieving its goals and objectives.
Agreed methods of evaluating management effec-
tiveness will be crucial in the attempt to assess
whether the world's nations have been successful
in their CBD target of ensuring that all protected
areas have effective management In place by 2012.
More importantly, such methods should actually
enable managers to Improve conservation and
management of protected areas on the ground.
They should enable managers to allocate
resources efficiently and plan for potential threats
and opportunities. Because evaluation Involves
judging management, some people see it as
negative or threatening. However, management
effectiveness evaluation should be a positive
process that allows us to learn from our mistakes
and build on success.
Protected area declaration alone does not
guarantee the conservation of values. Globally,
substantial Investments of money, land, and human
effort are being put into protected area acquisition
and management, and into specific intervention
projects. It is a remarkable achievement for the
world's governments and conservation organiza-
tions that more than 12 percent of the world's land
surface is in some form of protected area. However,
in most cases we have little Idea of whether
management of Individual protected areas, or of
whole systems. Is effective.
Managers and authorities, landowners and
communities, academics, and the general public
are beginning to ask some serious questions. Are
the values for which the area is declared being
protected? Are the current and future impacts on
the area's values overwhelming It, resulting in loss
of species and degradation, ecosystems, or cultural
values? How could management be improved to
better conserve the values In the face of growing
social expectations, often scarce resourcing, and
sometimes significant biophysical change? Are
interventions and projects, which are often very
expensive, achieving their objectives?
To answer these critical questions, an
increasing number of people have been
developing ways to monitor and evaluate the
138
The functions and processes of protected area management
effectiveness of protected areas and apply the
findings. This is leading to a growing awareness
that evaluation of management effectiveness Is at
the core of resilient, adaptive, and anticipatory
protected area management. Four broad
purposes for undertaking evaluation of manage-
ment effectiveness can be Identified.
Promoting better protected area management
This Includes a more reflective and adaptive
approach to management. By comparing evalua-
tions over time, emerging threats may be noticed,
as well as the Impacts of changes to management.
For example, an Individual park evaluation may
indicate that the condition of visitor facilities and
visitor satisfaction at a particular national park is
declining. Sometimes, a significant outcome of
evaluation is to demonstrate effective management
practices and to provide justification for their
continued support.
Guiding project planning, resource allocation, and
priority setting
Some conservation organizations are developing
models to set priorities and allocate resources.
Evaluation plays a key role in these models, which
generally establish a minimum acceptable standard
for different criteria and then assess protected
areas against these standards. The conservation
Importance of protected areas, their suitability tor
particular uses (such as tourism), and their current
threats are usually taken into account. Findings of
evaluation can also Influence resource allocation by
Indicating which programs are most effective In
achieving objectives. Management effectiveness
evaluation provides a mechanism for adaptive
management - feeding the results of research and
monitoring Into management on the ground and
giving a basis for decision making.
Providing accountability and transparency
Evaluation can provide reliable Information to the
public, donors, and other stakeholders about how
resources are being used and how well an area is
being managed. For example, the public often
want concrete evidence that funding is benefiting
conservation or that a particular project Is
achieving Its goals. Where protected areas are
managed by more than one party, through joint
management arrangements. regular and
Impartial evaluations provide a basis for ensuring
that obligations are met.
Increasing community awareness, involvement,
and support
Since chronic resource shortage Is a common
feature of protected area systems, public support -
sometimes serious public concern - Is needed to
convince governments to provide better resourcing.
Evaluation processes can alert the community to
threats and can demonstrate the need for Improved
support for protected areas. Results, especially
from Independent evaluators. can spur public action
on park management issues.
Essentially, evaluation enables practitioners to
reflect on experience, to understand what is
happening here and now, and to assess potential
threats and opportunities. Evaluation of manage-
ment effectiveness can play an important role In
providing transparency and accountability, and In
identifying mistakes and dead-end approaches.
However, it is an essentially positive process, and Is
best viewed as a critical part of an Improving
management cycle. Indeed, an increasing number
of scientists now believe that the application of
knowledge from multiple sources into management
Protected area
status alone does
not necessarily
guarantee the
conservation of
values.
139
The world's protected areas
TABLE 5.1 : THE WCPA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK
Elements of
evaluation
Context
Planning
Inputs
Processes
Outputs
Outcomes
Explanation
Where are we
Where do we
What do we
How do we go
What were the
What did we
now''
want to be?
need?
about It?
results?
achieve?
Assessment of
Assessment of
Assessment of
Assessment of
Assessment of
Assessment of
importance,
protected area
resources needed
the way
implementation
outcomes and the
tfireats. and
design and
management is
of management
extent to which
policy
planning
conducted
programs and
they achieved
environment
actions; delivery
of products and
services
objectives
Criteria assessed
Significance
Protected area
Resourcing of
Suitability of
Results of
Impacts: effects
Threats
legislation and
agency
management
management
of management
Vulnerability
policy
processes
actions
in relation to
National context
System design
Reserve design
Management
planning
Resourcing of site
Partners
Services and
products
objectives
Focus of
Status
Appropriateness
Resources
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
evaluation
Appropriateness
Appropriateness
Source: Hockings. St
olton & Dudley. 2000.
should be the most critical focus, and that "the
priority for ecosystenn management is evolving
improvements through reflection on experience
that follows decision and action" (Brunner and
Clarke. 19971. A system of evaluating management
effectiveness can help to integrate a variety of
information sources, such as traditional and
community knowledge, scientific findings, and the
perceptions and experience of managers and
stakeholders. Evaluation focuses on relevant
management-oriented knowledge, and on group
learning about how this should be practically
applied to meet future challenges.
Evolution of management effectiveness evaluation
The need to develop tools and guidelines to
"evaluate the ecological and managerial quality of
existing protected areas" was recognized in the
Bali Action Plan adopted at the end of the llird
WPC IBali] in 1982. Following the Bali Congress,
the issue of management effectiveness of pro-
tected areas began to appear in international
literature and particularly within the work and
deliberations of the WCPA.
The IVth WPC (Caracas) in 1992 identified
effective management as one of the four major
protected area issues of global concern and called
for lUCN to further develop a system for monitoring
management effectiveness of protected areas. In
1996, a Task Force was formed within the
Commission and in 2000, it published the WCPA
tvlanagement Effectiveness Framework (Table 5.1]
and guidelines for assessing the management of
protected areas (Hockings, Stolton. and Dudley,
20001 which have been subsequently revised
(Hockings efa(., 20061.
The Task Force has now been replaced by a
thematic program within WCPA, which is continuing
UO
The functions and processes of protected area management
TABLE 5.2: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION, PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED AND WCPA FRAMEWORK
ELEMENTS COVERED IN 21 CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
Methods of
WCPA Framework
data collection %
Participants %
elements %
Workshop 62
Site managers 100
Outcomes 81
Interviews 52
Off-site managers/agency staff 90
Inputs 71
Questionnaires 52
Local NGO 57
Process 67
Field monitoring 24
International NGO 57
Context 57
MIS 19
Scientists/researchers 57
Outputs 57
Map analysis 19
Local communities and institutions 52
Planning 52
Consultants 38
All 38
Government bodies 33
Management advisory committee 10
Indigenous communities 5
work on the issue. At the same time as the Task
Force vi^as preparing these guidelines, a number of
other groups and individuals around the world were
addressing the same issue by developing a range of
methodologies for assessing management effec-
tiveness. A suite of methodologies now exist, some
developed using the WCPA Management Effect-
iveness Framework and others derived Inde-
pendently (Hockings, 20031. Experience in
application of these various methodologies is now
Increasing. Some examples of this application are
summarized in Table 5.3, based on information
drawn from case studies prepared for an internatio-
nal workshop on management effectiveness
evaluation held in the lead up to the Vth WPC
IDurbanI In 2003 ILevenngton and Hockings, 2004).
These methodologies vary considerably in
their overall approach. Including in the type of infor-
mation used in the assessment process, in how the
information is collected, and in who is involved in
the assessment process (Table 5,21. These
differences, In part, reflect the purpose and context
of the evaluation and the resources available for the
work. Indeed, a variety of approaches that can be
adapted for use in different blomes and regions, and
applied with different levels of resources, is one of
the fundamental ideas behind the development of
the WCPA Management Effectiveness Framework,
as opposed to the development of one global system
for assessing management effectiveness.
The majority of the case studies reviewed in
the development of approaches to management
effectiveness evaluation relied principally on
existing data and perceptions of participants in
the evaluation process with less than a quarter of
the case studies using techniques such as field
monitoring, use of management Information
systems, or analysis of mapped data to Inform the
assessment. This may reflect the relative youth of
management effectiveness evaluation, with many
case studies having been undertaken as one-off or
Initial assessments. Hopefully, more widespread
and regular application of evaluation systems will
see a rise in the availability and use of monitoring
data In the assessment process.
All the case studies involved site managers in
the assessment process; local and international
non-governmental organizations and scientists
were the next most common participants. Only half
the studies Involved participation by local com-
munities and institutions, and only one provided
explicitly for indigenous communities - although
indigenous representatives may have been included
within the local community group in others. Wider
Involvement of communities and stakeholders in
evaluation processes should be encouraged.
Management effectiveness of protected
areas has been selected by the CBD as one of the
indicators that will be used to assess achieve-
ment of the UN 2010 biodiversity target. The
impetus provided by this decision is leading
many countries to undertake assessments of
management of their protected areas. Over the
next few years we should have a much clearer
picture of the state of the worlds parks based on
the results of this work.
U1
The world's protected areas
TABLE 5.3: CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION COLLATED AS PART OF A PREPARATORY
WORKSHOP FOR THE VTH WORLD PARKS CONGRESS
Reasons for evaluating
Case study Background information management
Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park, Uganda IBINPI evaluation of
management effectiveness
World Heritage listed BINP is managed primarily to protect the
park's montane forests and their diverse wildlife - especially
nearly half the world's remaining mountain gorillas. It is one of
the pilot sites in Enhancing Our Heritage; monitoring and
managing for success in Natural World Heritage sites.
To improve on existing management
strategies and reduce resource
wastage.
Evaluation of management of
Protected Areas IPAsI of
Catalonia. Spam
Catalonia is a region covering 32 OOOsq km in the north east of
Spam. Most protected areas are managed by the Catalonian
Govt, who, since 1992 have attempted to base consereation
planning on ecological criteria instead of social preferences.
European Pilot Study; Increase
information; Assess condition of PA
system and propose changes.
Evaluating the management
effectiveness of PAs in India
A World Bank-funded project by the Govt of India to assess the
management effectiveness of PAs in India.
Reassess results of 198A-1987
evaluation by applying same
methodology Recommend areas for
attention as well as legal and policy
changes.
lUCN WCPA-Manne/WWF MPA
Management Effectiveness
Initiative
lUCN WCPA and WWF initiative to improve management of
Marine Protected Areas (MPAsl.
To enhance overall capacity of
adaptive management of MPAs by
focusing on indicators specific to
MPAs and their surrounds.
Conservation Internationals Pilot
Evaluation of Management
Effectiveness of Protected Areas in
Peru and Ecuador
Peru and Ecuador manage PAs with some of the most
biologically diverse ecosystems on earth. Some areas of the
Amazon have liltle human activity, while parts of the Andes and
coastal forests have major human impacts. This results in very
different management contexts across the countries.
To improve understanding and
management of issues relating to
social context, physical context and
budget on PAs.
Evaluation of Management
Effectiveness of the Sian Ka'an
Biosphere Reserve (SKBRI
WH-listed SKBR covers over 600 ODOha on Mexican Caribbean
Coast and protects diverse marine, freshwater and terrestrial
ecosystems. It is threatened by urban growth and tourism.
Prepare and monitor a Sustainable
Development Plan - to limit external
threats to the park.
Forest Innovations Project;
Developing a Protected Area
Effectiveness Methodology for
Africa
It was recognized that little work had been done on management
effectiveness evaluation (MEEI in Africa. A methodology was
developed by the lUCN/WWF/GTZ Forest Innovations Project and
tested on a number of African Rese^^/es.
Develop and field test WCPA
methodology and promote MEE of
African PAs.
Evaluation of World Heritage
Management program for the
Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area
The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is one of the
largest conservation reserves in Australia protecting temperate
wilderness and cultural heritage. It is managed according to a
ten-year Statutory Plan, which details policies and actions
needed to be implemented to achieve the plan's objectives.
Provide reliable feedback to managers
and stakeholders about achievement
of management objectives. Enable
ongoing management to be more
effective and accountable.
Assessment of Federal Protected
Areas in Brazil
Brazil has 91 Federal Protected Areas. All 86 PAs created more
than six years ago were part of this assessment. Six years was
considered the requisite timeframe to allow for minimum
implementation of park management measures.
Support a WWF-Brazil campaign to
positively highlight PAs before a
Protected Area Bill in Congress was
voted on.
Data collection: W = v^orkshops; 1 = interviews; MIS = management information system; M = field monitoring; Q = questionnaires/surveys; MA = Map Analysis; MP = |
Existing Management Plan. Participants; SM = site managers/field staff; MA = Management agency staff (off-sitel; NGOILI - local NGO; NGOlll - international NGO; '
U2
The functions and processes of protected area management
Participants WCPA
Data in evaluation Frameworl< Identifiable results from
Methodology collection process elements evaluation process
Enhancing Our Heritage
project methodology based on
WCPA Framework.
W. 1. MIS
SM. MA, S,
NGOIU.
NGOIII, LC
C. PUI. PR. OP.
OC
Led to increase in staffing, development of
training plans, infrastructure and equipment
acquisition, plans for boundary changes to
resen/e. Refocus on gorilla research and
monitoring.
Indicator system based on the
WCPA Framework.
1. W
SM. MA, S, G,
NGOILI. LC
C, PL, 1, PR. OP.
OC
Too early in process to determine, although
managers considered issues not previously
thought about.
Survey of PA managers and
experts.
Q, 1,
SM. MA
NGOIII,
NGOILI, LC. G.
S
C, PL 1, PR. OP,
00
1984-1987 study led to increased resourcing,
amendments to law and policy, acceptance of
ecodevelopment near PAs,
Based on WCPA Framework
proposing indicators for
biophysical, socio-economic
and governance objectives.
Q. I.W
NGOIII.
NGOILI, C.
SM, MA, LC. S
Mostly OP and
00
Too early in process to determine.
Based on WCPA Framework
MA, 1
NGOIII.
NGOILI. SM.
MA,
C. PU 1. OC
Results of the evaluation are being finalized.
Organization and dissemination of background
information to allow more informed management
decisions.
WWF/CATIE (20001
methodology
W
SM, MA. C
All - although
mostly PR
Action plan to be incorporated into Management
Plan
Based on WCPA Framework.
Used participatory and rapid
rural appraisal techniques
concentrating on social aspects
W, 1, Q
C. NGOIII, G.
NGOIU.SM.
MA. LC
C, PL 1, PR.
OP, OC
Too early in process to determine.
Primarily outcomes-based
evaluation focused on
objectives in the management
plan for the site.
MP. M. Q
SM. MA. C. G.
WH, IC. 5
Focuses on OC
with some
consideration
of OP. 1
Evaluation results are guiding development of
next management plan. Results are expected to
influence budgeting and allow stakeholders to be
more involved with management performance.
Questionnaire developed for
this study
W. Q
NGOIII. MA.
SM. G. S
C. PL 1, PR.
OP. OC
Follow-up evaluation has not been done. The
evaluation was used to determine the status of
PAs not to directly influence management.
Results contributed to successful campaign in
support of legislation.
G = Govt bodies; LC = Local community; C =CcnsuUants; S = Scientists/Researcher institution; IC = Indigenous communities; AC= independent Management Advisory
Committee WCPA Frame»/ork elements; C = Context; PL = Planning; 1 = Inputs; PR = Process; OP = Outputs. OC = Outcomes
U3
The world's protected areas
TABLE 5.3: (continued)
Reasons for evaluating
Case study Background information management
Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Areas
Management IRAPPAMI
Methodology
WWF-lnternational has developed a tool for assessing the
management effectiveness of protected area systems. It is
intended to: 111 identify strengths and w/eaknesses; 121 analyze
threats and pressures; 131 identify areas of high ecological and
social importance and vulnerability; |4| indicate the urgency and
conservation priority for individual PAs; and (51 help to improve
management effectiveness.
Depended on each area, but
included assessing management
effectiveness of entire PA systems,
prioritizing support for critically
threatened PAs; establishing
baseline data and identify areas for
improving management.
Queensland Parks and Wildlife
Sen/ice rapid assessment and
ecological integrity statements
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is responsible for
managing most of the state's natural areas. Two systems of
management effectiveness evaluation have been piloted across
the state: evaluation of natural and cultural integrity and rapid
assessment of management processes.
To develop an efficient and replicable
system to encourage - better
reporting; adaptive management,
and monitoring for extension and
community involvement.
Learning about The Effectiveness
of Specific Conser^'ation Tools
across Protected Areas: Lessons
on Sustainable Agriculture in
Central America and Mexico
This study was a three-year field test in two biosphere reserves
in Guatemala and Mexico. The NGOs responsible for managing
these PAs conducted the evaluations as part of an adaptive
management process. They were also learning about the
application of sustainable agriculture as a conservation tool in
these areas-
It was facilitated by the Biodiversity
Support Program IBSPI to field test
a framework for conducting adaptive
management at site and cross-site
levels.
Application of the Nature
Conservancy's consen/ation audit
process at Cosumnes River
Project, California. USA.
For 1 5 years, the Nature Conservancy and partners have
managed the Cosumnes River area of California's Central
Valley Lowlands. This evaluation was done as part of a
Conservation Audit Process being used by the Nature
Conservancy to assess conservation success.
Primarily to assess the threat status
and viability status of the focal
conservation targets of the
Cosumnes River Area.
The Enhancing our Heritage
Project
Enhancing our Heritage: monitoring and managing for success
in Natural World Heritage sites is a four-year project of lUCN
and UNESCO working in ten pilot sites in Asia Africa and Latin
America.
Project aims to demonstrate the use
of the WCPA Framework to develop
monitoring and assessment systems
to improve management and
reporting in World Heritage sites.
Evaluation of Management
Effectiveness in the Oulanka
National Park, Finland
Oulanka National Park in the Arctic Circle supports spruce
forest, peatlands and diverse lake and river habitats. Some
1 50 000 visitors a year enjoy outdoor activities and provide
substantial tourist income to the local community
Obtain PAN Parks certification for
Oulanka. Balance tourism and
conservation and improve overall
management effectiveness.
Evaluating Management
Effectiveness of the Eraser Island
World Heritage Area
WH-listed Eraser Island is managed by Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service. The case study aimed to develop a
methodology of assessing management effectiveness in PAs by
building in a process for evaluation and review of the extent to
which management plan was being implemented and its
objectives were being achieved.
Provide information to managers
and stakeholders on effectiveness of
management as a basis for
informed decision making, improved
management practices, reporting
and accountability
Regional Project on Evaluation of
Management of Protected Areas
in Central America
Central America comprises seven countries over half a million
km.' as a land bridge between North and South America. The
region's diverse topography and climate supports a range of
ecosystems. A model was developed for evaluation of
management of protected areas as part of a regional project.
National Park authorities requested
that the model be tested on various
pilot sites.
Data collection: W = workshops; 1 = interviews. MIS > management information system. 1^ = field monitoring; Q = questionnaires/surveys; MA = Map Analysis; MP =
Existing Management Plan. Parlicipanis: SM = site managers/lield staff; MA = Management agency staff [off-sitel; NGOIL] - local NGO; NGOIIl - international NGO;
MA
The functions and processes of protected area management
Participants WCPA
Data in evaluation Framework Identifiable results from
Methodology collection process elements evaluation process
Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Area
Management (RAPPAMI
Methodology
W, Q
SM, MA, C.
NGOIIl,
NGOILI, LC. G,
S
C, PL, 1, PR,
OP, OC
Although only recently completed, initial
management changes for various areas include:
plans to undertake annual management
effectiveness assessments; using results to set
priorities for park support; using results to set
annual budgets.
Rapid assessment
questionnaire developed using
the WCPA Framework
Q.I
SM, MA
1, C, OC
Too soon to assess, although awareness of
management issues has been increased and
managers are thinking about better ways to use
resources and improve management.
BSP "Measures of Success"
framework for conducting
adaptive management at site
and cross-site levels.
W, 1, Q, M
C, NGOIIl,
NGOILI, LC, SM
None specifically
but Measures of
Success IS
similar to the
WCPA
framework.
Adaptive Management principles were integrated
into routine management. Partners were able to
compare results using common terminology Able
to generate concrete guiding principles for using
sustainable agriculture under varying conditions.
Able to see why sustainable agriculture did or did
not work at different sites.
Conservation Audit process
built around the Nature
Conservancy's Five-S
Framework for Site
Conservation.
W, MA
C, SM, MA,
NGOdl
Mostly C and OC
with considera-
tion of other
Framework
elements
Helped to focus on indirect threats to biodiversity
Also helped to focus on conservation needs not
relating to increasing the size of the protected
area.
The Enhancing our Heritage
Toolkit draws on different
methodologies designed
around application of the
WCPA Framework.
W, 1. MIS,
M, MA.
MP
S, LC, MA,
SM, NGOILI,
NGOIIl
C. PL, 1, PR,
OP, OC
Too early to assess, although suggestions for
change from the initial assessments will soon be
implemented at project sites.
PAN Parks Certification model
based on specified criteria and
indicators
Q, MIS. 1
C, MA, SM, S,
LC
C, PL. 1. PR,
OC
Better cooperation between the national park and
tourism organizations, leading to more
sustainable tourism.
Field-monitoring programs
designed to assess
achievement of objectives,
monitoring of management
inputs and outputs,
assessment of management
processes.
M.W. MP
SM, S, MA,
WH
1, PR, QP, OC
Used in camping, fire and dingo management
decisions. Some research programs initiated in
response to findings. Information used in review
of management plan and in review of World
Heritage Values of the site.
Questionnaire based around
five broad management
aspects. Performance in
relation to indicators within
each aspect assessed on a
five-point scale.
W. MA, MP
SM, MA, LC,
NGOILI, IC
Mostly 1, PR
with some
consideration
ofOC
A new perception by managers of what could be
achieved with the same resources. The
monitoring model is mandatory for protected
areas in five countries. National annual reports
on the state of these protected areas draws
largely on this monitoring.
G = Govt bodies. LC = Local community; C =Consultant5; S = Scientists/Researcher institution; 10 = Indigenous communities; AC= independent tvlanagement Advisory
Committee. WCPA Framework elements: C = Context; PL = Planning; 1 = Inputs. PR = Process; OP = Outputs; OC = Outcomes
U5
The world's protected areas
Chapter 6
Managing the
marine environment
Contributors: M. Spalding and E. McManus
In terms of resource use and management,
two factors distinguish the marine from the
terrestrial environment. Firstly, as a liquid
medium, connectivity is continuous and near
absolute. Few actions or processes in the oceans
are spatially restricted in the same way as they
may be on land - impacts in one part are likely to
affect those elsewhere. Secondly, marine areas
and marine resources are typically of open access
to all. They rarely fall under any form of ownership
or property regime below that of the state, while
64 percent of the world's ocean surface lies in
"international waters", beyond any form of
national sovereignty.
As pressures on such "common" resources
rise, there is an inevitable drive towards over-
exploitation. Individuals who break the rule of
sustainability make an individual gain while the
costs of their actions are buffered by a communal
loss. This "tragedy of the commons" was noted for
the sea as it was for land in 1968 by Garrett Hardin:
"Maritime nations still respond automatically
to the shibboleth of the 'freedom of the seas'.
Professing to believe in 'inexhaustible
resources of the oceans', they bring species
after species of fish and whales closer to
extinction. " I Hardin 1968: 12441.
The problems facing the ocean environment
are immense. In 2006, the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAOl estimated that about
75 percent of the world's fish stocks were being
exploited beyond sustainable limits. Pollutants
including persistent organic pollutants and solid
wastes are now found in all of the world's oceans.
Invasive species have decimated natural eco-
systems and devastated economies.
MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS
As on land, numerous management interventions
have been applied to control resource use and
human Impacts in the marine environment. These
include direct conservation measures, but also an
array of measures whose primary aim may not be
biodiversity conservation but which, nevertheless,
have positive "side-effects" for biodiversity -
fisheries controls; regulations on mineral
extraction; controls on pollution and the dumping of
solid waste; to name just a few.
Many of these management interventions
have developed in an ad hoc manner, and their
success is highly variable. Marine protected areas
(MPAsl may be the most important management
tool for marine biodiversity conservation, but as has
already been noted, their global coverage remains
minimal - a mere 0.5 percent of the global ocean
surface. Even within this small estate, few sites are
adequately protected from the many threats that
arise ex situ from adjacent marine or terrestrial
areas. Even fewer sites have developed integrated
management to incorporate the concerns and
wishes of the broad array of stakeholders, or are
placed within a wider framework of coastal zone
management. Without such efforts the positive
benefits of one intervention can be quickly undone
by conflicting actions elsewhere.
MARINE MANAGEMENT AREAS - A BROAD ARRAY
Strictly speaking, MPAs are defined as areas set
aside for environmental protection (Chapter 2),
however the differences between such a definition
and areas set aside for fisheries protection can be
subtle. In a few cases a broader suite of regulations
and management structures may protect more
extensive areas through forms of integrated coastal
U6
Managing the marine environment
M. Spalding
Bluestrlped snapper and goatfish.
147
The world's protected areas
BOX 6.1: The International Framework
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
lUNCLOSI provides a critical legal framew/orl< for
establishing legal controls on activities in the marine
environment. Under this convention, most states
have now declared territorial seas and exclusive
economic zones, within which all existing marine
protected areas have been declared.
The territorial sea is a belt of water not
exceeding 12 nautical miles in width measured from
the territorial sea baseline. Generally the baseline is
the low-water line along the coast, although
provisions are included for extending the baseline
out across narrow embayments, fringing and atoll
reefs, and between islands of archipelagic states.
This area lies under full sovereignty of the adjacent
state, covering the sea, airspace, benthos and sub-
benthos Isubsoill.
The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond
and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending out up
to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Nations
maintain sovereign rights over the natural resources
within this region and have jurisdiction, among other
things, for the protection and preservation of the
marine environment.
Currently the majority of marine protected
areas are concentrated in the territorial sea of
nations, but a growing number have been extended
out into the exclusive economic zone.
management (ICMl. which again do not conform to
the definition of an MPA. The term marine
management area lIvlMAl is sometimes used to
cover this broader suite of spatially confined
management interventions which have some
positive impact on the natural marine environment.
Here we briefly consider some of the different
classes of |v/||vlAs before going on to consider the key
issues that arise in the establishment and
management of such areas.
Marine Protected Areas
As in terrestrial protected areas, a spectrum of
levels of protection exists in MPAs. Many sites focus
on fishing as one of the few, relatively easy and
direct impacts that can be controlled. This may
consist of partial protection such as protecting
particular species or size classes, reducing or
banning access to particular user groups (com-
mercial, recreational, or local] or to particular
fishing practices Ispearfishing, trawling, use of nets
or lines], or it may consist of full closure of all or
part of a site to any extractive activity. Sites also
regularly restrict other damaging activities, notably
anchoring, waste disposal, and sand extraction. The
use of zoning systems within I^PAs is widespread,
and can create a challenge in assignation of lUCN
management categories, though probably no more
than in zoned terrestrial sites.
One group of t>/IPAs that has received
particular attention in recent years are no-take
marine reserves (variously referred to as fully
protected marine reserves, no-take zones, or
sometimes simply marine reserves]. These are
areas where no natural resource extraction is
permitted and they typically equate to lUCN
Categories lA or II. |v/lany of these are small, but they
have a profound impact on natural resources,
particularly in heavily exploited regions, typically
leading to burgeoning fish populations and spillover
effects to surrounding waters.
Fisheries Management Areas
In many cultures, fisheries controls of different
sorts go back millennia. Such measures have incl-
uded limiting access (who may fish]; controlling the
size of the catch; the removal of subsidies; and buy-
back schemes to take fishers out of the market. A
further suite of fisheries control measures tackle
the actual fishing techniques, setting limits on how,
where, or when fish may be caught.
A fisheries management area (FfvlAl is a
geographically defined area where the fishing sector
(e.g. industrial/artisanal], gear, target or bycatch
species, effort, and/or seasonality are restricted.
This term clearly Includes many tvlPAs, but may also
Include sites designated by the fisheries sector
without any specific reference to environmental
protection. As with I^PAs, there is a spectrum of
interventions, from restrictions on some gears at
some times through to a completely closed area
protected from any anthropogenic impact (a no-take
marine reserve]. The term also includes areas that
are under national zoning schemes.
At a national level, FtvlAs can reduce the
conflict between different fishery sectors (e.g. the
U8
Managing the marine environment
coastal zone in Costa Rica is restricted for the use of
artisanal fisheries only), and between fishers and
other users le.g. divers). At a local/smaller level,
fishery management Interventions are often linked
to MPAs, but seasonal and temporary closures, or
monospecific interventions such as the UK cod
boxes are rarely included in the MPA statistics.
Integrated Coastal Management
Concept papers developed prior to the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment lUNCEDI In 1992, recognized that the coastal
zone was too complex to be managed effectively at
the sectoral level. The term "Integrated coastal
management" IICMl, was coined to describe a more
comprehensive approach, to coastal management,
which Incorporated all sectors Influenced by the
coastal zone, as well as Integrating economic, social,
and ecological concerns.
Conceptually very simple, ICM has yet to be
widely embraced in formal legal or administrative
structures. Most examples are sub-national. They
vary considerably in approach and In the degree of
integration they provide, but most cases bear
witness to the considerable social and economic
benefits to be had from integrating the Interests of
different sectors and concerns. Some offer only very
limited additional protection to natural resource
protection, but others embrace this as a primary
objective, and many Incorporate MPAs within their
overall planning framework.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Buiiding stakeholder and community support
First and foremost In any MMA establishment and
management process Is the Involvement and
integration of key stakeholders. A broad array of
stakeholders, often dispersed over wide areas, may
be linked to any marine area. Direct stakeholders
include fishers, recreational users Ifor swimming.
Fishing in the Jardines
de la Reina National
Park, Cuba.
BOX 6.2: Fisheries Benefits and Limitations
There is now considerable evidence that marine
protected areas do benefit the fish populations that
exist within them. Halpern 120031 has reviewed 76
studies of protected areas, which were protected
from at least one type of fishing. On average, he
found that the abundance of fish doubled, the
average body size increased by fully one third (which
can equal increased egg production of 2^0 percent],
the biomass doubled, and numbers of species
increased by 33 percent.
Strict no-take areas have particularly dramatic
effects on resident fish stocks, and there is growing
evidence that these effects can lead to considerable
social and economic benefits to fishers in adjacent
areas. Benefits may occur through two processes,
larval export and spillover Larval export occurs when
the propagules are produced in the marine protected
area and are then distributed to settlement areas; to
date it has been hard to prove, but seems very likely.
Spillover occurs when mature Individuals move from
the MPA. It seems that in areas under heavy fishing
pressure, yields will continue to grow, despite the
reduction in total fishing area, up until some 30
percent of the area is set aside in this way (Roberts
and Hawkins. 2000; Roberts. Bohnsack et ai. 20011.
It is evident that marine protected areas cannot
readily guarantee the protection of highly migratory
species, for example tunas or whales. For these and
many other species, marine protected areas need to
be seen as tools to be used in combination with other
management Interventions, for example, effort
reduction schemes.
U9
The world's protected areas
Aldabra World Heritage
Site, Seychelles.
diving, boating, fishing, or scenic values), industry
Imaritime transport and non-living resource
extraction), and those with direct interests in
biodiversity. Indirect stakeholders are those who
impact the ocean as well as those who rely on the
ocean or its ecosystems for services such as food
(consumers), water purification, climatic controls,
or protection from storm damage (coastal
communities living near coral reefs, mangroves,
seagrasses). There are often conflicts of interest
between these stakeholders, associated with both
access and exploitation. Dealing with conflict and
establishing collaboration between stakeholders is
a key challenge in the development of equitable and
sustainable management systems.
Resource ownership
Private ownership (and the establishment of private
reserves) in the marine realm is rare. However,
partial ownership or recognition of stewardship is
not unusual. From a fisheries perspective this
ownership can take the form of resource ownership,
for example in the form of individual transferable
quotas (ITQs), which effectively give ownership to a
certain amount of a particular fishery stock. Such
ITQs may then be fished, or the quota traded.
From a protected area perspective, the
establishment of territorial use rights in fisheries
(TURFs), or other forms of direct ownership are
particularly interesting and often very effective.
Problems of overexploitation can be far better
handled if the user community is small and subject
to socio-cultural as well as legal controls - limits to
use can be set by the adjacent community and these
can be adequately enforced. In some cases this may
lead to a sort of de facto MPA, with the levels of
control arising from ownership providing important
and unprecedented levels of protection. The owners
of such areas may also choose to establish
protected areas within their TURF area, giving
partial or complete protection. Such approaches are
widely found in traditional societies (see below),
but are increasingly being established in formal
legal regimes.
Raising awareness
Many "stakeholders" are unaware of their reliance
on, or use of, particular aspects of the marine
environment, such as fresh fish or clean beaches,
before these become degraded or lost. Education
can be a critical tool in einpowering such stake-
holders to take control and support management
efforts, particularly where previously a single
dominant stakeholder group is driving environ-
mental degradation to the detriment of others.
Education and outreach must be focused
towards the individual needs of target groups. A
growing number of marine management areas are
using fishers themselves as communicators.
Efforts to establish new no-take zones in Fiji were
greatly advanced when a spokesperson from a
successful project in a village on Viti Levu was taken
to talk to chiefs on the island of Kadavu. His words
were probably far more persuasive than those of
outside experts in generating interest in establ-
ishing no-take zones on this island.
Some of the most enduring MPAs are those in
which local people are able to benefit. Programs
such as the Club Mer initiative in Rodrigues in the
Indian Ocean, in which schoolchildren are trained to
swim and then to snorkel, should guarantee
support for MPAs into the next generation.
Of course, growing recreational interest can
bring further challenges, but impacts can be greatly
reduced through education and interpretation
programs. Diver impacts on coral reefs have been
greatly reduced through simple instruction by dive-
schools. Well-designed notification, especially
where the rules and regulations are placed in a
positive context of ecological benefits and general
information about ecology, are powerful tools. A
number of sites, including the Cerbere-Banyuls
150
Managing the marine environment
Marine Nature Reserve in France, have developed
underwater trails for snorkelers.
Operation and enforcement in the marine
environment
While community involvement and education may
reduce levels of infringement, further efforts are
required to ensure full compliance. Marine areas
are beset with challenges when it comes to field-
based management. Access to marine areas is
costly, requiring boats, engines, navigational equip-
ment, and other resources. Impacts on the benthos
and in the water column are not immediately
detectable. Boundaries cannot be easily marked.
At the same time, because of the considerable
benefits to resource users, including many fishers,
it is possible, more than in many terrestrial parks,
to engender considerable community support for
marine management areas. The same community
can often be used to regulate the area, or to pass on
information regarding infringements. Other appr-
oaches to ensuring compliance often take advant-
age of existing authority patrols such as coast-
guards. The Strict Nature Reserves in the British
Indian Ocean Territory have no staff. However, their
boundaries are known to the Fisheries Protection
Vessel that operates in these waters, and which
also occasionally takes members of the British
army, acting as police, customs, immigration, and
biodiversity protection officers, to these areas.
Approaches to enforcement may be very site
specific. In some cases it may be valuable to take a
soft approach to first offenders as a means of
maintaining community support. Elsewhere, strict
and rapid enforcement at an early stage can be
invaluable in establishing a clear baseline. If it
is relevant, the designation or use of customary
leaders and procedures in enforcement processes
can be of considerable value.
Boundary demarcation is often possible
through the use of buoys, while having a clear
boundary definition greatly eases policing and
reduces opportunities for disagreement and
infringement. For larger sites, this may involve the
use of lines between named geographic coord-
inates, while In some cases the use of clear and
visible landmarks on land serves the same purpose.
Many MPAs are designed to permit multiple
sustainable uses within their boundaries, and the
development of zoning systems provides a cost-
effective means of managing different uses. Zoning
systems permit selective control of activities at
different areas within a site, including both strict
protection and various levels of use. These may
include core conservation areas le.g. spawning
sites! as sanctuaries where all disturbing or
extractive activities are prohibited, or where
damaged areas are left undisturbed to enable
recovery. Zoning systems can also be used to
separate incompatible recreational activities Isuch
as waterskiing and snorkelingl.
A considerable number of marine parks now
charge user fees, particularly to the generally high-
value tourist visitors associated with sailing and
diving activities. The diving industry has led the way
in many areas and a number of sites, such as the
Bonaire Marine Park in the Netherlands Antilles,
levy a user fee on all divers which is paid via the dive
operators. Many countries have fixed fees for yachts
and, in those parks with some permitted fishing,
this may also be license driven. In many cases such
fees provide a substantial part of the running costs
for protected areas. A hidden, but also valuable
function of the fees is to raise levels of expectation,
which in many cases also leads to increased vigi-
lance against non-payers and rule breakers within
protected areas.
The use of new technology is likely to increase
in coming years, particularly for more remote sites.
Ship-borne satellite transponders already play a
critical role in some pelagic fisheries, and it is
entirely plausible, at very broad scales, to require
such technology within the licensing system for
fishing or recreational vessels, which can enable
immediate detection of vessels that stray beyond
particular boundaries.
Monitoring and response
Information is critical for any management
program. A baseline description of a protected area
provides a foundation for considering change, while
monitoring provides repeated quantitative assess-
ment of parameters likely to highlight change. It is
useful to consider two broad arenas of monitoring:
ecological and socio-economic.
Typically, detailed ecological information
about the marine realm is scarce and often
anecdotal. Improving such information is often
highly costly Remotely sensed technology is
increasingly providing the means to map shallow-
water resources in areas of clear water even at
quite high resolutions, although it remains
expensive. Without such technology simple base
maps, particularly of smaller sites, can be
151
The world's protected areas
prepared from anecdotal information and direct
observation. Baseline descriptions sfiould cover
both physical and ecological parameters, and it is
important to realize that certain parameters may
not be detected through a single mapping exercise.
Habitat maps provide no information at all about
spatially restricted species, or any of the mobile
fauna or planl<tonic species. Certain species,
activities, and even entire communities may
exhibit seasonal patterns and be missed entirely
on single surveys.
Quite often, anecdotal and local knowledge
provide a further critical basis for planning and for
establishing monitoring techniques. Following dev-
elopment of baseline l<nowledge, monitoring
approaches must be tailored towards specific
points of Interest or concern, but may include:
repeat habitat mapping; assessment of numbers or
blomass of key species; assessment of juveniles;
spawning aggregations; migratory species;
invasive species or pathogens. Physical para-
meters may include water-quality indicators,
temperature, currents, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and key pollutants.
Socio-economic monitoring Is necessary to
understand the uses and potential pressures on
protected areas and particularly to observe trends
which may, over time, lead to problems. Some of
this may take place outside of the protected area, in
the adjacent communities and fishing ports, but it is
also important to find geospatial variation in uses
and impacts within a site. Typical data may Include
local population size and demographic trends
fishing methods, locations, and catch details
tourist activities and numbers; economic para-
meters associated with fishing, tourism, and other
activities; perceptions of protected areas; and
willingness to pay for access and/or resources
(Wilkinson e( a/., 20031.
The science of reactive management in
response to environmental change for marine
protected areas Is still in its infancy In developing
management responses the linkage between socio-
economic and ecological parameters must often be
established. If rising fishing levels can be clearly
linked to declines In stocks, there Is a clear and
powerful argument for Intervention. Similarly, if the
benefits to fishers of no-take zones can be
numerically and economically quantified, support
for these measures will increase. It is very
important, as with all monitoring and response
measures, to place the findings for a particular site
Into a broader context. Other MPAs are highly likely
to have exhibited similar impacts or changes; many
may have developed appropriate management
responses. In ecological surveys, cyclical or
stochastic factors of change may cause
considerable concern, but comparison with longer-
term datasets from other sites may help in
understanding such change.
The question of who does the monitoring often
requires careful consideration. Particularly in coral
reef protected areas there are a large number of
Individuals and organizations offering volunteer
services to undertake monitoring. These provide a
basic minimum, but many monitoring techniques
require high levels of accuracy and consistency The
danger of relying on basic, volunteer-based,
monitoring Is that this offers only a crude tool, since
there is often limited capacity and time input for
noticing subtle change and impacts.
Managing ex-s/Yu threats
Some of the greatest concerns of MPA management
are from threats beyond the boundaries.
Understanding the distribution of such threats, and
monitoring changes in them, needs to be
incorporated into the wider monitoring process
already discussed. There are, however, significant
difficulties in dealing with such threats.
Some ex-s/ft/ threats may be reduced through
protected area design or through development of
protected area networks. For example, the incorp-
oration or expansion of boundaries to include entire
adjacent watersheds or small Islands within sites
may greatly reduce the threat of new activities
creating problems of pollution and sedimentation.
With more specific ecological knowledge it may also
be possible to design sites to include elements of
Interconnected habitats. For example, many coral
reef species utilize adjacent seagrass and man-
grove ecosystems as a spawning or larval habitat,
so inclusion of these within the boundary of an MPA
can help recruitment of new individuals to the
ecological community. On a broader scale, some
countries are now developing networks of protected
areas. Given the high levels of connectivity In the
marine environment, the Incorporation of multiple
sites provides a level of resilience to the system.
Should a pollution event or even a natural disaster
such as a hurricane have an impact on a site,
recovery may be much more rapid it natural
restocking can occur from other well-protected and
unlmpacted sites within a system of MPAs.
152
J
Managing the marine environment
Belize barrier reef, a
World Heritage site
since 1996.
Looking beyond the protected areas them-
selves, a clear priority must be to place existing
sites in a wider framevtforl< of coastal management.
The development of integrated coastal manage-
ment IICM) can be a critical tool. ICM is ideally a
broadly inclusive and iterative process that uses the
informed participation and cooperation of all
stakeholders to define goals and to balance
environmental, economic, social, cultural, and
recreational objectives. It is intended to reduce the
inefficiencies and damage arising from conflicting
uses of the coastal zone by harmonizing policy,
administration, and management in all sectors
Despite the importance of ICM, and the clear
societal benefits that it can produce, there are few
working examples. Belize offers one national-level
working example. A large number of marine
protected areas have been declared in this country
and in 1996 these were collectively incorporated
into the Belize Barrier-Reef Reserve System, a
World Heritage site. In 1998 a Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act was adopted and a Coastal Zone
Management Authority established. Although still
somewhat centralized, some degree of integration
between government agencies has been achieved,
and public consultation has been undertaken.
This region is also advancing a new degree of
international cooperation in the coastal zone
through the Mesoamencan Barrier Reef Project, in
collaboration with Guatemala, Honduras, and
Mexico. In Xiamen, China, the Partnership in Envir-
onmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
IPEMSEAI has assisted the city government to
implement integrated coastal zone management
[ICZMI, resulting in an integrated zoning scheme for
the use of both land and coastal resources.
In many other cases the actual development of
ICM is an organic process in which the role for the
individual protected area may provide a critical
catalyst. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the
Portland Bight Protected Area in Jamaica, the
Soufriere Marine Management Area in St Lucia, and
the Ras Mohammed protected areas complex in
Egypt all provide examples of protected areas that
are developing and encouraging levels of integrated
management and full community involvement that
provide a basis for what can clearly be seen as ICM.
Approaches to managing MPAs and other marine
conservation areas
Traditional approaches
In the Asia-Pacific region, traditional marine
management systems were once widespread and
many still offer an important model. In Palau in the
Pacific Ocean two such systems are prevalent in the
fisheries sector lYoshi 2003):
153
The world's protected areas
Traditional marine tenure systems. The geo-
graphical boundaries in a fishing area are defined
by marine or geographical landmarks using the
fishers' notion of property and ownership of the
area. Those boundaries are historically constructed
and enforced by the fishing community as a whole.
Community control on traditional techniques
tor fishing within defined areas. Particular fishing
techniques are considered to be the property of
certain groups (e.g. clans or families). Thus fishers
can use these techniques only with the permission
of those groups in specific sites. This restriction is
extended even to the authority to "speak about"
these techniques and thus represents a traditional
copyright for transmitting knowledge.
Systems like these are also still widely
respected in countries such as the Solomon Islands
and the Cook Islands. Elsewhere, recognition of
their effectiveness has led to similar systems being
revitalized. In both Fiji and Vanuatu such customary
tenure of marine resources is now being upheld
through the modern legal system, as it is believed
that traditional owners will provide better protection
for their natural resources than more centralized
ownership with open access to all (Spalding,
Ravilious& Green 20011.
The same concepts, those of devolving owner-
ship and management of marine resources to local
communities, are now also being tried in other
Cinque Terre National
Park, Italy, a cultural
World Heritage Site,
also provides protection
for the adjacent Cinque
Terre Marine Natural
Protected Area.
countries with some success. These approaches
in the Philippines, for example, have led to a
rapid increase in locally designated fisheries
restricted areas.
Modern approaches
Single objective sites: Leigh Marine Reserve.
New Zealand
Frequently, MPAs are designated for a single
reason, e.g. resource conservation, ecotourism,
extraction, or water-quality protection. One of the
world's first no-take fishing reserves was the Leigh
Marine Reserve in New Zealand, established in
1975 adjacent to the Leigh Marine Laboratory. The
campaign to establish the site lasted ten years, and
was undertaken because of concerns of over-
extraction and the degradation of natural resources.
Following establishment, the densities and average
sizes of fish and invertebrate target species greatly
increased within the site. Many fishers now choose
to fish right on the reserve boundaries, and because
of the increases in their catches in these places the
fishers have now joined the wider community in
actively supporting the park. Many fishers even
report incidents of poaching. Dive tourism to the
site is a major contributor to the local economy IGell
& Roberts 20021.
Multiple objective sites: Sian Ka'an, Mexico
There is much pressure on aquatic systems in the
Mexican coastal zone from a number of stake-
holders. In many areas the stakeholder base is also
growing with rapid economic development, further
increasing the potential for resource conflict.
In the Sian Ka 'an Biosphere Reserve the com-
munity has developed a co-management system
that includes a wide variety of stakeholders in
both decision-making and management activities.
Stakeholders include: the government; fishers'
groups; research agencies; the recreational dive
industry; the tour industry; developers; and land
owners. One example of how different stakeholders
are cooperating in the reserve is the agreement
between the tourism and fishers' organizations.
This defines a closed period for the lobster fishery
(between March and June], during which the fishers
stop fishing for lobster and tourists are allowed to
participate in recreational catch-and-release fly
fishing. These activities do not interfere with other
species that are important to the local community.
This arrangement greatly reduces the potential for
conflict between the fishers and the tourism sector
15A
Managing the marine environment
Zoning systems: The Great Barrier
Reef Marine Parl<
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park operates a
zonation scheme originally established under the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The
zoning has recently been completely revised and
this has led, among other things, to a major
increase in the total area of no-take "green zones"
within the park, from less than 5 percent to about 30
percent. The new zoning includes:
□ General Use Zone: The least restrictive of the
zones, this provides for all reasonable uses
including shipping and trawling. Prohibited
activities are mining, oil drilling, commercial
spearfishing, and spearfishing with
underwater breathing apparatus.
Q Habitat Protection Zones: These provide for
reasonable use, including most commercial
and recreational activities. Trawling and
general shipping are prohibited as well as
those activities not allowed in the General Use
Zone.
Q Conservation Park Zone; Prevents most
commercial fishing, but allows recreational
fishing with lines.
Q Buffer Zone: All extractive activity is forbidden,
other than trawling from a moving boat for
pelagic "game" fish. All recreational visits,
diving, and snorkeling are permitted.
□ Scientific Research Zones: Set aside close to
research locations. Most are open to public
access and are equivalent to Marine National
Park Zones.
□ Marine National Park Zones: All extractive
activity is forbidden, but non-extractive
recreational use and passage are permitted
Q Preservation Zones: All entry is prohibited with
the exception of scientific research that could
not be conducted elsewhere.
These zones can be mapped on to the lUCN
Protected Areas Management Categories as shown
in Table 5.1,
The High Seas
The high seas are defined as the area of ocean
beyond national jurisdiction (WWF/IUCN/IUCN
WCPA 2001). Approximately 64 percent of the
oceans are beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the
EEZs of coastal states. These high-seas areas are
open-access areas and so there are few measures
available to control extractive or other activities. In
TABLE 6.1: lUCN Protected Areas Management Categories in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park
Equivalent
lUCN category
la
GBRMP
zone type
Preservation zone
Scientific research zone
Area
km» (%)
710
155
Total
865
10.31
II
Marine national park zone
1U530
133.31
IV
Buffer zone
Conservation park zone
9 880
5 160
Total
15 040
14.31
VI
Habitat protection zone
General use zone
Commonwealth islands
97 250
116 530
185
Total
213 965
162.11
Total all zones
344 400
Source: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
recent years human activities on the high seas have
intensified and a number of direct and indirect
human activities now present significant threats,
including disposal of wastes (obsolete structures,
radioactive wastes, and munitions], deep-sea
fishing, oil and gas extraction, mining of marine
minerals, and climate change.
A number of geographic features, habitats,
and biological communities in the high seas are
regularly identified for their scientific, societal, or
economic interest and are currently thought to be at
threat from anthropogenic pressures. They are:
hydrothermal vents; deep-sea trenches; poly-
metallic nodules; gas hydrates; seabirds; trans-
boundary and other migratory marine species fish
stocks; seamounts; deep-sea "coral reefs"; cold
seeps and pockmarks; submarine canyons; and
cetaceans IVWVF, lUCN & WCPA 20011.
At present there is no clear legal framework
under which protected areas could be designated in
the high seas receiving considerable attention from
the UN and from various member states lUNEP,
20061. A number of conventions provide a general
background, notably the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea and its Fish Stocks
Agreement, which includes requirements for
parties to protect biodiversity and implement
"conservation and management measures" [Fish
Stocks Agreement Art. I [b]). Similar general
support is provided under the Convention on
Biological Diversity, which calls upon parties to
cooperate in areas beyond national jurisdiction
155
The world's protected areas
Crinold [Florometra
serratissima] and
brisingid seastar
on black coral,
Davidson Seamount in
the Monterey Bay
National Marine
Sanctuary, USA.
(Art. 51 and to "establish a system of protected areas
... including botli marine and terrestrial areas".
Great impetus to these requirements has been
provided by the World Summit for Sustainable
Development commitment to the "establishment of
a representative netv/crk of MPAs by 2012; and liil
restoration of fisheries to maximum sustainable
yields by 2015' (WSSD Plan of Implementation,
para. 31cl. Proposals under consideration include
the development of a new implementing agreement
to UNCLOS to ensure existing commitments are
realized and to strengthen existing bodies; or
simple to work with, and possibly add to, some of
the existing regional bodies lUNEP, 20061.
Two types of regional agreements can be
singled out as of particular importance for high
seas management: the Regional Seas Conventions
and the regional fisheries agreements. A number
of the Regional Seas Conventions make provision
for the establishment of protected areas within the
waters of member states, but the recently
declared Pelagos Sanctuary or International
Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals as
a Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean
Interest (Barcelona Convention] provides an
important precedent. As many of the Medit-
erranean states have not formally claimed EEZ
areas, this site can be said to lie in the high seas.
Apart from representing an important level of
international collaboration, the site, although still
only providing protection for a small group of
species, includes regulations on all activities
that might impinge on these species, even going
beyond the boundaries of the site itself
(Anon. 20031.
Regional fisheries agreements provide
another model. A number of existing agreements
allow, among other things, forthe definition of high-
seas sanctuaries and management areas for
various marine species. These include:
Zl The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFOI, which has regulatory responsibility for
all fish resources (with the exception of
cetaceans and sedentary species) outside of
national jurisdiction in a defined area of the
North Atlantic.
Q The international Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCATl, whose
convention applies to all water of the Atlantic
Ocean and adajacent seas, including the
Mediterranean Sea. The species covered in
this agreement are the tuna and tuna-like
species, and species exploited in tuna fishing
but not under investigation by any other inter-
national organization.
At the global level the only body to have overseen
the establishment of areas of protection has been
156
Managing the marine environment
the International Wtialing Commission llWCJ,
established in 1946. The IWC established the Indian
Ocean Sanctuary in 1979. extending south to 55°S
latitude, as an area where commercial whaling was
prohibited. This Sanctuary was initially established
tor ten years and its duration has since been
extended twice. At the 46th 119941 Annual Meeting
the IWC adopted the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
as another area in which commercial whaling is
prohibited. One of the arguments in favor of the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary was to protect the Indian
Ocean's whales when they migrated south to feed in
the waters around the Antarctic. Efforts to add new
whale sanctuaries for the South Atlantic and the
South Pacific, as well as opposing efforts calling for
the removal of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, have
all failed in recent years, as such decisions require
a clear 75 per cent majority.
These sanctuaries provide cetaceans with
protection in their foraging and breeding areas and
there are proposals to greatly increase the
sanctuary areas to include a large part of the
southern hemisphere. Given their highly focused
protection for only one species group, it is not clear
if these areas should be considered as protected
areas in the sense defined by lUCN. Furthermore,
despite the broad agreement for the estab-
lishment of these sanctuaries, their strength has
been undermined by the unilateral decision of one
member state, Japan, to continue killing hundreds
of whales each year using the justification of
scientific research, mainly in the Southern Ocean.
This points to a much wider problem of potential
failings with international agreements.
Managing the high seas: what is stopping us?
There is a growing acceptance that political div-
isions across the ocean surface are poor tools for
natural resource management. Oceanographic
boundaries, and hence the movement of species
such as the yellowfin tuna, rarely follow such
divisions. For marine resources it will be far more
valuable to utilize oceanographic properties
representing ecosystems, or even to use activity
ranges of species themselves, to define areas for
management.
As technology develops, humankind's ability to
gather meaningful information for the management
of the marine environment increases. Radio-
tracking and acoustic survey techniques allow
scientists to know where and how much of different
species exist. Remote satellite imagery allows for
detailed analysis of habitat distribution and health
Icoral and seagrasses, etc.l, the primary product-
ivity of specific areas, and the location and activities
of fishing vessels. Other telemetry and sensing
equipment can predict the presence or absence of
large pelagics (e.g. tuna species) through the
collation of information on sea-surface temper-
atures and current information. All of this tech-
nology is already being used by the larger fishing
vessels and fleets to target their quarries with ever-
increasing accuracy; it could equally be used to
manage the activities of the fishing fleets as well as
other marine activities.
The question for the international community
is "What are the limiting factors that hinder the
management of the marine environment on the
high seas?" The technologies exist, but the inter-
national frameworks to harness the information
and manage the marine environment beyond
national jurisdictions are currently not in place. The
priority must now be to develop and implement
equitable, sustainable, and effective ecosystem-
based agreements that respect the marine envir-
onment as interrelated ecosystems.
157
The world's protected areas
Chapter 7
Prospects for protected areas
in the 21st century
Contributor: S. Chape
ASSESSING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT:
THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE
Enormous strides have been made in the last few
decades in the creation of a global protected area
network - governments, communities, and organiz-
ations now protect more than 12 percent of the
Earth's land surface, making protected areas one of
the planet's dominant land-use allocations. If
effectively managed, this network will play a crucial
role in the conservation of the world's biodiversity,
providing a service of incalculable value to future
generations. However, challenges remain. The
world has changed dramatically in the past
century- certainly more than during any other
stage in human history. More changes, some
predictable, some less so, can be expected in the
forthcoming century. These changes will not only
place more pressure on the world's protected areas
but also bring their role into sharper focus.
Where are we now, and where are we going?
Chapter 1 presented a map of the human footprint
on the world. The study that produced that assess-
ment IS one of a number of analyses over the past
decade that have attempted to measure human
impact on the Earth's ecosystems and resources.
We live in an age when such impacts, and the pace
of global environmental change, have generated
international concern. The most recent and comp-
rehensive global assessment to be completed is
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment IMAI,
requested by the UN Secretary-General in 2000 and
initiated in 2001. The results published in 2005
make somber reading and have direct implications
for the values and prospects of protected areas in
the 21st century. A principal finding of the MA iMA
2005al is that:
"over the past 50 years, humans have changed
ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in
any comparable period of time in human history,
largely to meet rapidly growing demands for
food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This
has resulted in a substantial and largely
irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth. "
The MA report Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Biodiversity Synthesis (MA, 2005b) notes that over
half of the world's biomes have already undergone
20-50 percent conversion to human use, and such
conversion is likely to continue (Figure 7.11. During
the past few hundred years human-induced species
extinction rates have increased by up to 1 000
times background rates occurring throughout
Earth's history (Figure 7.2), and 10-50 percent of
mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers, and cycads
are currently threatened with extinction. How much
biodiversity will remain by the end of the century
depends on how much society values biodiversity
and understands the ecological services that it
delivers, and what action it takes to ensure
conservation. Unfortunately, all the scenarios
examined by the MA "project continuing rapid
conversion of ecosystems in the first half of the 21st
century" (MA, 2005b:5l.
Over the next half century, barring unforeseen
catastrophe, the world's human population can be
expected to increase by half as much again, to
around 9 billion people. This is a much slower rate
of increase than seen in the previous century, but
still represents an enormous additional pressure on
the world's resources, with an extra 3 billion people
to be fed, clothed, and housed.
An increase in the food supply is likely to
be achieved through a combination of agricultural
158
Prospects for protected areas in the 21" century
5 Chape
In the 21st century the role and values of protected areas will become increasingly important, including intangible values.
Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex World Heritage Area, Thailand.
159
The world's protected areas
FIGURE 7.1 : RELATIVE LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
OF VASCULAR PUNTS BETWEEN 1970 AND
2050
Extinctions will continue after 2050, as natural
populations reach equilibrium with remaining
habitat. Note that the biomes in this figure are
from the IMAGE model and are significantly
different from the biomes mentioned elsewhere
in this report.
Afrotropical
Indo-Malay
Neartic
Neotropical
Australasian/Oceanic
PaLearctJc
Warm mixed forest
Temperate deciduous forest
Savannah
Stirub
Tropical woodland
Temperate mixed forest
Tropical forest
Wooded tundra
Grassland/steppe
Cool coniferous forest
Desert
Tundra
Boreal forest
Percent of 1970 total number of species
-5 -10 -15 -20 -25
by realm
2020 2050
■ ■
by terrestrial bJOmG
using the IMAGE Land-cover biomes definition
FIGURE 7.2: SPECIES EXTINCTION RATES
Source; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
10 000
1 000
100
"Distant past" refers to average extinction rates as
calculated from the fossil record. "Recent past" refers
to extinction rates calculated from known extinctions 1 oo 000
of species (lower estimate) or known extinctions plus
"possibly extinct" species (upper bound). A species is
considered to be "possibly extinct" if it is believed to
be extinct by experts but extensive surveys have not
yet been undertaken to confirm its disappearance.
"Future" extinctions are model-derived estimates
using a variety of techniques, including species-area
models, rates at which species are shifting to
increasingly more threatened categories, extinction
probabilities associated with the lUCN categories of
threat, impacts of project habitat loss, and correlation
of species loss with energy consumption. The time
frame and species groups involved differ among the
"future" estimates, but in general refer to either
future loss of species based on the level of threat that
exists today or current and future loss of species as a
result of habitat changes taking place roughly from
1970 to 2050. Estimates based on the fossil record are
low certainty. The lower-bound estimates for known
extinctions are high certainty, while the upper-bound
estimates are medium certainty; lower-bound
estimates for modelled extinctions are low certainty,
and upper-bound estimates are speculative.
Extinctions per thousand species per millennium
0.1
Distant past
[fossil record)
Recent past
Future
(known extinctions)
[modeledl
r
Projected future
extinction rate is more
""than ten times higher
than current rate
For every thousand
mammal species, more
than one went extinct
I
Marine Mammals
species
Mammals Birds Amphibians
All
species
Current extinction rate
is up to one thousand
times higher than the
fossil record
Long-term average
extinction rate
Source: Millennium
Ecosystem AssessmenI
160
Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century
intensification and the bringing of new areas into
production. Most of tfie latter will almost certainly
take place in the low-lying areas of the humid
tropics, particularly Amazonia and, if political
stability permits. Central Africa, these being still
two of the world's most biodiverse areas with,
currently, large expanses of forest cover Most of
this production is lil<ely to be on an industrial scale,
designed to meet international markets, in many
areas, exhaustion of existing agricultural land
through overuse and unsustainable management
practices means that extensive areas of land will
be largely abandoned and may begin to revert to
some, usually degraded, semi-natural state. This
phenomenon has already occurred extensively in
temperate parts of the world, particularly North
America and Europe. This abandonment is accom-
panied by growing urbanization (or, in the developed
world, suburbanization) with, in most countries,
cities growing at a far faster rate than rural popul-
ations through rural-to-urban migration, in the
developed world, and in some middle-income
countries, this has reduced the overall pressure for
conversion of land to agriculture as marginal lands
are no longer considered economic (although
perverse incentives, for example in the form of
agricultural subsidies, continue to have a distorting
effect on this]. However, in countries with
substantial rural populations living in poverty, land
degradation has increased pressure on marginal
lands as those people remaining in rural areas are
forced to try and eke out what living they can.
Growing demand for food production may lead
to pressure to de-gazette protected areas on highly
productive lands. Increasing abstraction of
freshwater for agriculture will almost certainly lead
to degradation of wetlands In protected areas. In
areas with marginalized rural communities, pro-
tected areas often already represent some of the few
undegraded areas left. Unless other options can be
Implemented, such as restoration of productivity of
existing used lands, the pressure to exploit the land
in protected areas will intensify. Similarly, growing
demand for wild products (e.g. timber, medicinal
plants, and wild or bush meat! and depletion of such
resources outside protected areas will lead to
Increasing exploitation of resources within protected
areas. Although in many protected areas such
exploitation is a management objective, it is very
often not undertaken on a sustainable basis.
While high levels of rural poverty will continue
to have a direct effect on land use. Increasing wealth
in other sectors of society will also exacerbate
pressures on wild lands. In particular, burgeoning
economic expansion in the two most populous
nations on Earth, China and India, is likely to
increase the demand for resources both within
those countries and elsewhere.
In the seas, pressure on fishery resources can
be expected to intensify. There has been little mani-
fest success to date in sustainable management of
marine fisheries on a large scale. As stocks become
further depleted, it is likely that competition to
squeeze the last few benefits from them will
increase rather than decrease. Some 50 percent of
commercial fisheries are already fully exploited and
25 percent overexploited.
As an overarching issue, global climate
change is predicted to have growing impacts both
on natural ecosystems and areas of agricultural
production. One major manifestation of this is likely
to be the shifting of biocllmatic zones so that areas
suitable or optimal for particular species and
species assemblages will move from their present
positions. In the most extreme cases there may be
no overlap between existing suitable areas and
future ones. The MA has concluded that by the end
of the 21st century, climate change and associated
impacts "may be the dominant direct driver of
biodiversity loss and changes In ecosystem services
globally" (MA 2005b:101. Climate change will mean
that the climatic conditions in many protected areas
may cease to be optimal or even adequate for some
proportion of the biota they currently contain. Those
The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict has had a major
impact on environmental
quality and protected
areas. In Gaza the Wad!
Gaza Nature Reserve,
an important stopover
point for birds on the
Africa-Eurasia migratory
route, has become an
open sewer.
161
The world's protected areas
for which conditions may cease to be suitable are
lil<ely to include a disproportionately high number of
restricted range or threatened species, as these are
more lil<ely to have more precise requirements than
widespread and abundant species, and may well
include those whose preservation was a major
motivation for the establishment of the area in the
first place.
Current analyses suggest that major changes in
global energy supply are extremely likely to take place
In the next few decades, with global oil production
peaking some time between the present and 2030
and following a continuing decline thereafter. (Some
analysts believe that the peak has already passed.)
The implications for human society and the impact of
humans on the biosphere are unclear, and vigorously
debated, but are bound to be far-reaching. With the
increasing demand and a decreasing supply, hydro-
carbon fuel costs are almost certain to Increase
sharply and have wide-ranging repercussions on all
aspects of human endeavor, including development
economics and the management of protected areas.
At the very least, a growing scarcity of available oil
combined with growing demand Is extremely likely to
lead to increased pressure to open up to production
any remaining areas with hydrocarbon reserves. This
will certainly increase pressure to allow extraction
from existing protected areas, even where this Is
currently not allowed. This has already manifested
itself in a decision by the US Government in March
2005 to permit the opening up of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska for oil exploration.
Efforts to reverse this decision are ongoing, but
meanwhile the oil companies are lining up to begin
offshore drilling in the nearby shallow shelf areas of
the Beaufort Sea despite concerns of native peoples
and the large potential threats posed by the impacts
of spills in such a sensitive region. Oil reserves In the
Refuge Itself are unlikely to make a major contribution
to that country's massive levels of consumption,
raising the Issue of the benefits of very short-term
alleviation of the US energy problem against the likely
costs of long-term damage to one of the world's most
important remaining natural areas, with ecosystems
that are also highly susceptible to the impacts of
climate change.
Apart from the impact of exploitation of
remaining oil reserves, a major concern for
biodiversity conservation is the growing shift to
blofuels. As the cost of fuel rises, large-scale
production of blodlesel and ethanol-producing
crops becomes more economical, and indeed the
process has already started on a large scale In the
US, China and India. There will be increasing
pressure to continue to clear natural areas,
especially in the tropics, to produce a range of crops
for fuel, such as oil palm, soybean, coconut and
sugar cane. Brown |2006;36| notes: "in the absence
of government constraints, the rising price of oil
could quickly become the leading threat to
biodiversity, ensuring that the wave of extinctions
currently underway does indeed become the sixth
great extinction."
Other factors that directly impinge on the
current and future capacity to manage protected
areas include civil unrest with, in some areas,
growing threats to the safety and welfare of
protected areas staff. War and civil conflict have
had severe Impacts on protected areas and
ecosystems outside protected areas In Central and
West Africa, Iraq, and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories. The Vth World Parks Congress also
Identified the HIV/AIDS pandemic as a growing
threat to the capacity to manage protected areas In
many developing countries through its impact on
staff numbers.
Meeting global biodiversity targets: pursuit of
the unattainable?
The international community has commendably set
targets for achieving global biodiversity objectives,
as well as those for broader human development
that have implications for biodiversity conservation.
Thus we have the 2010 target under the Convention
on Biological Diversity ICBD) for significantly
reducing the "current rate of biodiversity loss at the
global, regional and national level as a contribution
to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on
Earth" (CBD Decision VI/261; the 2015 Millennium
Development Goals (MDGsl; and a series of specific
goals and targets agreed at the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development, Including, for
example, the target to establish an effective global
marine protected area (MPAl network by 2012.
With the possible exception of this last target,
which is at least theoretically attainable through
action by national governments, other targets and
goals are unlikely to be achieved In the next three
to eight years. In fact, the MA has concluded that
without "unprecedented international efforts"" the
biodiversity targets will not be achieved. The
assessment observed that "the magnitude of the
challenge of slowing the rate of biodiversity loss Is
demonstrated by the fact that most of the direct
162
Prospects for protected areas in the 21=' century
drivers... are projected to either remain constant or
to increase in ttie near future. Moreover, inertia in
natural and human institutional systems [often]
results in time lags - of years, decades, or even
centuries - between actions being taken and their
impact on biodiversity and ecosystems becoming
apparent" (MA, 2005b:UI. Furthermore, there are
Inherent tensions between the development goals
and the biodiversity targets, since some of the
actions needed to reduce poverty in the short to
medium term - such as the expansion of
agriculture and the creation of road networks and
other infrastructure - are likely to accelerate or at
least continue rates of biodiversity loss. Avoiding
such problems will require hitherto unachieved
levels of integrated conservation and development
planning and action.
Implications for protected areas
Paradoxically, the current rate of global change and
continuing loss of biodiversity presents both threat
and opportunity for protected areas. On the one
hand, the predicted continuing loss of biodiversity
and other impacts threaten the viability of protected
areas as core elements of national, regional, and
global conservation strategies. On the other, the
values and importance of protected areas are
increasingly recognized, and the constituency of
There are obvious
tensions between
development goals
and biodiversity targets.
Some of the actions
needed to reduce
poverty In the short
to medium term,
Including the expansion
of agriculture, are
likely to at least
continue rates of
biodiversity loss. Forest
Incursion In Rondonia,
Brazil.
163
The world's protected areas
'^
it
:■ ?:f>'
vi^
7 ,^*f^ ;\
«i.Vf^
^^W- ^|af«MjiBBBB
1 '^^^ .,■
1*^^
"^m
-^
<3
^^IJ^^ "
V JA,...
,
'*!«;
WM
Tetepare Island, in the
Solomon Islands, is an
outstanding example of
a community-conserved
area, protecting 120 km
of mainly primary
rainforest - a significant
area in the insular
Pacific - and other
features, and
addressing Outcomes
5 (rights of indigenous
people) and 8 (improved
governance) of the
Durban Action Plan.
support for their establishment has broadened
considerably, particularly as governments and
communities become more aware of the ecological
and economic services provided by these areas,
notwithstanding significant shortcomings, partic-
ularly with regard to IvIPA networl<s. Of course,
if integrated conservation and development
approaches can be successfully implemented, there
is considerable scope for synergies between
protected areas, conservation objectives, and
achievement of the MDGs - even if the time horizon
must be made more realistic.
The importance of protected areas is
reflected in their use as indicators for both the
CBD 2010 biodiversity targets and the MDGs, and
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has also
emphasized the need to strengthen the global
protected area system. However, both the 2010
targets and the MDGs have emphasized changes in
the number and extent of protected areas as the
principal indicators to be used to assess progress
towards targets. Unfortunately, measurements of
the number and extent of protected areas are
lil<ely to provide only a superficial indication of
political commitment to conserving biodiversity
IChape, 20051 as they do not assess how effectively
they are conserving biodiversity, or even if they are
adequately covering priority habitats and species
(Rodrigues et at., 2003). A comprehensive suite of
indicators is required that includes conservation
and management effectiveness in addition to
numerical and spatial data.
GLOBAL "BLUEPRINTS" FOR PROTECTED AREAS
The worldwide interest in protected areas and their
growth into one of the most important land-use
allocations on the planet culminated in 2003 and
200A in agreement on two important global frame-
works for guiding future directions for protected
areas. Critically, the first framework, the Durban
Action Plan, informed the second, the CBD
Programme of Work on Protected Areas. This was
an important step in the integration of global civil
society views on the future direction of protected
areas into formal intergovernmental decision-
making processes.
Outcomes of the Vth World Parks Congress
The Vth World Parks Congress (WPCI held in
Durban, South Africa, in September 2003, was
attended by 3 000 people with direct and indirect
interests in protected areas. These included
resource managers, scientists, politicians, min-
isters, civil servants, and industry leaders from
U4 countries. However, as a non-intergovern-
mental meeting, any recommendations and agree-
ments by participants of the Congress, held every
ten years, have no international legal status.
Nevertheless, previous congresses have played an
important part in guiding the scientific and
professional development of protected area
philosophies and methodologies for over iO years.
The opportunity for the 2003 Congress was the
linkage of its outputs and recommendations to
debates at the CBD (C0P71 in February 2004 on the
proposed Programme of Work on Protected Areas
to be implemented under the Convention. The
2003 Congress produced two major outputs:
Durban Accord
The Accord was a broad statement of commitment
from the 3 000 participants to the rest of the world
and, recognizing rapid global change, proposed a
new paradigm for protected areas:
"In this changing wortd, we need a fresh and
innovative approach to protected areas and
their rote in broader conservation and
development agendas. This approach dem-
164
Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century
and5 the maintenance and entiancement of
our core conservation goals, equitably integ-
rating tliem with the interests of all affected
people. In this way, the synergy between
conservation, the maintenance of life-support
systems and sustainable development is
forged. We see protected areas as a vital
means to achieve this synergy efficiently and
cost-effectively We see protected areas as
providers of benefits beyond boundaries -
beyond their boundaries on a map. beyond the
boundaries of nation states, across societies,
genders and generations. "
Durban Action Plan
The Action Plan adopted at the Congress set an
international agenda for improving the status of
protected areas over the next decade, when the
outcomes will be assessed at the next World
Parks Congress, to be held in 2013. The Action Plan
BOX 7.1 : THE DURBAN ACTION PLAN OUTCOMES AND KEY TARGETS
Outcomes Key Targets
1 : Protected areas fulfil their full role in biodiversity
conservation
1 : A significantly strengthened role for protected areas in implementing the Convention
on Biological Diversity
2: All sites whose biodiversity values are of outstanding universal value are inscribed
on the World Heritage List.
2: Protected areas mal<e a full contribution to
sustainable development
3: The management of all protected areas is reviewed so that they help alleviate
poverty, and do not exacerbate it.
3: A global system of protected areas, with links to
surrounding landscapes and seascapes, is in
place
4; A system of protected areas representing all the world's ecosystems is in place.
5: All protected areas are linked into wider ecological/environmental systems of
resource management and protection on land and at sea.
4: Protected areas are effectively managed, «/ith
reliable reporting on their management
6: All protected areas have effective management systems in place.
7: All protected areas have effective management capacity
5: The rights of indigenous peoples, including
mobile indigenous, and local communities are
secured in relation to natural resources and
biodiversity conservation
8: All existing and future protected areas are established and managed in full
compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous
peoples, and local communities.
9: The management of all relevant protected areas involves representatives chosen by
indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous peoples, and local communities
proportionate to their rights and interests.
10: All participatory mechanisms for the restitution of indigenous peoples' traditional
lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free
and informed consent are established and implemented.
6: Younger generations are empowered in relation
to protected areas
11: There is a significantly greater participation of younger people in the governance
and management of protected areas.
7: Significantly greater support is secured for
protected areas from other constituencies
12: Programsof support for protected areas are achieved among all major stakeholder
constituencies.
8: Improved forms of governance are in place
13: Effective systems of governance are implemented by all countries.
9: Greatly increased financial resources are secured
for protected areas
U: Sufficient resources are secured to identify, establish and meet the recurrent
operating costs of a globally representative system of protected areas.
10: Better communication and education are
achieved on the role and benefits of protected
areas
15: All national systems of protected areas are supported by communication and
education strategies.
165
The world's protected areas
BOX 7.2: CBD PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS: ELEMENTS AND GOALS
Program Elements Goals
1 ; Direct actions for planning, selecting,
establishing, strengthening, and managing
protected area systems and
sites
Goal 1.1 To establish and strengthen national and regional systems of protected areas
integrated into a global netvaork as a contribution to globally agreed goals.
Goal 1.2 To integrate protected areas into broader land- and seascapes and sectors
so as to maintain ecological structure and function.
Goal 1.3 To establish and strengthen regional networks, transboundary protected
areas ITBPAsI and collaboration betw/een neighboring protected areas across
national boundaries.
Goal 1.4 To substantially improve site-based protected area planning and
management.
Goal 1.5 To prevent and mitigate the negative impacts of key threats to protected
areas.
2: Governance, participation, equity, and
benefit sharing
Goal 2.1 To promote equity and benefit-sharing.
Goal 2.2 To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and
relevant stakeholders.
3: Enabling activities
Goal 3.1 To provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment
for protected areas.
Goal 3.2 To build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of
protected areas.
Goal 3.3 To develop, apply and transfer appropriate technologies for protected areas.
Goal 3.4 To ensure financial sustainability of protected areas and national and regional
systems of protected areas.
Goal 3.5 To strengthen communication, education, and public aviiareness
k: Standards, assessment, and monitoring
Goal A. 1 To develop and adopt minimum standards and best practices for national and
regional protected area systems.
Goal 4.2 To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management.
Goal 4.3 To assess and monitor protected area status and trends.
Goal 4.4 To ensure that scientific knowledge contributes to the establishment and
effectiveness of protected areas and protected area systems.
identifies ten outcomes and 15 key targets to be
achieved by that date. See Box 7.1.
To support these outcomes there are a range
of recommended actions at global, regional, and
national levels. As well as the Accord and Action
Plan, the Congress endorsed 32 comprehensive
recommendations tabled by participants, covering
subjects as diverse as the cultural and spiritual
value of protected areas, mining and energy,
evaluating management effectiveness, and private
sector funding. In addition, a number of supporting
targets were adopted for ecosystems and species:
Ecosystem-rebted supporting targets
□ Develop a common global framework for
classifying and assessing the status of
ecosystems by 2006.
Identify quantitative targets for each
ecosystem type by 2008.
Ensure that, by 2006, protected area systems
adequately cover all large, intact ecosystems
that hold globally significant assemblages of
species and/or provide ecosystem services
and processes.
Ensure that viable representations of every
threatened or underprotected ecosystem are
conserved by 2010.
Ensure an increase in the coverage of
freshwater ecosystems by protected areas las
proposed by CBD Recommendation VIII/21 by
2012.
Secure a representative network of marine
protected areas by 2012, as called for in the
W55D Plan of Implementation.
166
Prospects for protected areas in the 21"century
Species-related supporting targets
□ Ensure all Critically Endangered and
Endangered species globally confined to
single sites are effectively conserved in situ
by 2006.
Q Ensure all otfier globally Critically Endangered
and Endangered species are effectively
conserved in situ by 2008.
□ Ensure all otfier globally ttireatened species
are effectively conserved in situ by 2010.
Q Ensure that sites that support internationally
important populations of species that
congregate and/or have restricted-range
species are effectively conserved by 2010.
The main elements of the Action Plan and adopted
recommendations were reflected in a formal
message from the Congress to the CBD Cop7.
CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas
A Programme of Work on Protected Areas was
adopted at the CBD Cop7 in Kuala Lumpur in
February 2004, and largely reflected the recom-
mendations of the 2003 World Parks Congress. The
adoption by Contracting Parties to the CBD is an
important step in further formalizing at the inter-
governmental level the values and roles of
protected areas in global conservation, and their
linkage to conservation and development agendas:
'T/ie overall purpose of the programme of work
on protected areas is to support the establish-
ment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial
and by 2012 for marine, areas of compre-
hensive, effectively managed, and ecologically
representative national and regional systems
of protected areas that collectively, inter alia
through a global network, contribute to
achieving the three objectives of the Convention
and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the
current rate of biodiversity loss at the global,
regional, national and sub-national levels
and contribute to poverty reduction and the
pursuit of sustainable development, thereby
supporting the objectives of the Strategic Plan
of the Convention, the World Summit on
Sustainable Development Plan of Implem-
entation and the Millennium Development
Goals. ■■ fSCBD, 2004bl
The work program comprises the elements and
goals outlined in Box 7.2, each of which has a series
of time-bound targets (Box 7.3).
CAN THE "BLUEPRINT" BE IMPLEMENTED?
There is sufficient correlation and synergy between
the outcomes and recommendations of the 2003
World Parks Congress and the Programme of Work
on Protected Areas agreed by the Parties to the CBD
that the Programme can be considered as a
defining framework or "blueprint" for protected
areas for the next decade. The Programme of
Work has the benefit of intergovernmental endorse-
ment as part of an international agreement and, as
such, theoretically brings responsibilities to the
Parties of the CBD and is subject to the Con-
vention's reporting processes. If all elements, goals,
and targets of the Programme of Work are imple-
mented by 2015, an effective and resilient global
protected area network could well be in place for
the remainder of the 21st century.
The problem with time-bound targets
A difficulty with the Programme of Work lies in the
ambitious time-scale of its targets. While it is
important in any endeavor to set timelines for
achieving targets, both as an incentive for achieve-
ment and so that progress can be measured, they
must be realistic. Most of the Programme of Work,
to be achieved between 2006 and 2015, is inter-
linked and sequential, with both national- and
regional-level objectives. A number are theor-
etically achievable by the designated target year,
such as gap analyses and capacity assessments at
national levels. Others are more problematic - for
example, it is unlikely that national-level reviews of
existing and potential forms of conservation and
types of governance were undertaken "with full and
effective participation of indigenous and local
communities" by 2006. Many of the targets will
require technical and financial support to devel-
oping countries, which will need allocation and
mobilization of considerable resources and, in the
case of many supporting bilateral donor agencies, a
refocus on funding priorities for conservation
activities in their assistance programs. The
inescapable conclusion is that the Programme of
Work will only be implemented in part within
currently designated time frames.
The role of protected areas: stretching the limits?
In Chapter 1 we discussed the "new paradigm" for
protected areas - the increasing recognition over
the past few decades of the full range of values
provided by protected areas that include many
social, cultural, and economic benefits. This has
167
The world's protected areas
BOX 7.3: CBD PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS TIME-BOUND TARGETS
2006
□ Establish time-bound and measurable national- and regional-level protected area
targets and indicators.
□ Establish or expand protected areas in any large, intact, or relatively unfragmented
or highly irreplaceable natural areas, areas under threat, with threatened species,
and taking into account migratory species.
Q Conduct, with full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities,
national-level reviews of existing and potential forms of conservation and types of
governance.
Q Address under-representation of inland water ecosystems in national and regional
protected area systems.
□ Complete protected area system gap analyses at national and regional levels.
□ Evaluate national and sub-national experiences and lessons learned on specific
efforts to integrate protected areas into wider land/seascapes.
□ Identify legislative and institutional gaps and barriers that impede effective
establishment and management of protected areas.
3 Complete national protected area capacity needs assessments, and establish
capacity-building programmes.
□ Develop and adopt appropriate methods, standards, criteria, and indicators for
evaluating protected-area management effectiveness and governance, and set up
a database.
2008
□ Address under-representation of marine ecosystems in national and regional
protected-area systems.
□ Identify and implement practical steps for improving integration of protected areas
into wider land/seascapes, including policy, legal, planning, and other
measures-
CJ Effective mechanisms for identifying and preventing, and/or mitigating, negative
impacts of key threats to protected areas are in place.
□ Mechanisms established for equitable sharing of costs and benefits of
establishment and management of protected areas.
J Full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the
management of existing protected areas, and in the establishment of new
protected areas.
J Review and revise policies, including social and economic valuation and incentives,
to provide a supporting enabling environment for more effective establishment and
management of protected areas.
□ Establish and begin to implement country-level sustainable financing plans that
support national protected-area systems, including necessary regulatory.
been reflected in the rapid grov^/th in the designation
of lUCN Managennent Category VI - Managed
Resource Area protected areas with their emphasis
on sustainable use. Globally, Category VI protected
areas now exceed the area of Category II - National
Parks, and together Category V - Protected
Landscape/Seascape and category VI protected
areas account for almost i3 percent of the total area
protected. While the broadening of the role of
protected areas - which is also reflected in new lor
reinstated) approaches to governance - is to be
applauded, there needs to be a careful approach to
the promotion of the benefits that can be delivered
by such areas.
168
Prospects for protected areas in the 215t century
legislative, policy, institutional, and other measures.
Zl Sufficient financial, tecfinical, and other resources to effectively implement and
manage national and regional protected-area systems are secured.
3 Public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the importance and benefits
of protected areas significantly increased.
□ Standards, criteria, and best practices for planning, selecting, establishing,
managing, and governance of national and regional protected-area systems
developed and adopted.
2009
□ Designate protected areas identified through gap analyses.
Q Effectively address legislative and institutional gaps and barriers that impede
effective establishment and management of protected areas.
2010
-I Global netvi/orl< of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national
and regional terrestrial protected areas established.
-J Establish and strengthen transboundary terrestrial protected areas and other
forms of collaboration.
J Develop or update management plans for protected areas.
-1 Comprehensive capacity-building programs and initiatives implemented.
3 Development, validation, and transfer of appropriate technologies and innovative
approaches for effective management of protected areas is substantially
improved.
3 Frameworks tor monitoring, evaluating, and reporting protected-area manage-
ment effectiveness adopted and implemented by Parties.
□ Management effectiveness evaluations implemented for at least 30 percent of each
Party's protected areas and ecological networks.
□ National and regional systems established to enable effective monitoring of
protected-area coverage, status, and trends at national, regional, and global scales,
and to assist in monitoring global biodiversity targets.
2012
Global network of comprehensive, representative, and effectively managed national
and regional marine protected areas established.
Establish and strengthen transboundary marine protected areas and other forms
of collaboration.
All protected areas effectively managed using participatory and science-based
planning processes that incorporate clear biodiversity targets.
2015
J All protected areas and protected-area systems integrated into wider
land/seascapes.
A major objective of the CBD Programme of
Work on Protected Areas is to "contribute to poverty
reduction and the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment" in support of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation
and the MDGs. Indeed, the 2003 World Parks
Congress was also framed within the concept of
"benefit beyond boundaries", including the role of
protected areas in ameliorating poverty. A two-page
flyer released by the Congress and sponsored by the
lUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management,
Ramsar, and the UNESCO Man and Biosphere
Program listed ten target action areas for
strengthening protected areas over the next decade.
169
The world's protected areas
There needs to be a
better understanding of
the opportunities and
limitations of Linking
protected areas to
development outcomes
and poverty reduction.
Target 1 was poverty alleviation, with specific
reference to National Poverty Reduction Strategies,
while ecological targets were ranked at fifth
Imarinel and sixth places.
It is fundamental that we have a holistic and
integrated approach to resolving the problems of
poverty, resource access inequities, and global
environmental change if we are to be successful in
conserving the world's remaining and rapidly
diminishing biodiversity. Such an approach must
include the roles and values of protected areas, and
the environmental services that many such areas
provide. Too few protected areas are linked into
development planning, land use, and other
resource management decision-making systems
beyond their boundaries. Many protected areas
thus function as isolated units, and the ecological
linkages that they ultimately depend on often have
no legal protection.
However, it is essential that we do not demand
too much. Protected areas cannot be a panacea for
the world's development problems, even if they can
significantly contribute to the solutions. Even at the
local level, delivery of benefits from protected areas
is problematic. One of the major problems to be
overcome in developing countries is the inequitable
distribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining
protected areas. Most notably, people living in the
vicinity of a protected area may bear significant
costs from the presence of that area, chiefly through
foregoing the often short-term benefits that would
otherwise accrue if they were allowed to exploit its
natural resources in an unrestrained way. Solving
this in an equitable fashion that is sustainable
(socially, ecologically, and financially) in the long
term and acceptable to all interest groups has
proved highly intractable. Sustainable use of wild
resources, through direct harvesting or tourism,
has often been promoted as a means by which local
people and national agencies can derive income to
offset the immediate and future opportunity costs of
maintaining protected areas. However, as Hutton
and Leader-Williams 120031 noted: "Notwith-
standing the potential financial benefits that often
flow from the use of living wild resources, such use
has not often realized its full potential as an
incentive to support habitat and species con-
servation objectives, or to benefit the rural poor" In
some countries, such as Costa Rica, successful
partnerships have been built with local private
businesses, resulting in regular income for local
people and national management agencies.
However, as McClanahan 12004:4] has noted:
"Ecological and economic benefits of protected
areas are often indirect and most relevant at the
national and international level, making it difficult
for conservation to pay for itself at the local level."
Recent reviews of the integrated development
and conservation experience IWells et a/., 2004;
MacKinnon, 2002] have concluded that there is little
evidence that developmental improvements for
local people near protected areas results in more
effective biodiversity conservation, based on the
many integrated conservation and development
170
Prospects for protected areas in the 21" century
programs implemented in the 1980s to 1990s. We
have to define more achievable goals and have a
more realistic understanding of the opportunities
and limitations of linl<ing protected areas to devel-
opment outcomes and not set the criterion for
success of protected areas based on their
alleviation of poverty alone. The fundamental chall-
enges facing protected areas over the next century,
and against which most are likely to be assessed by
future generations, are successfully conserving
biological diversity and providing sustainable envir-
onmental services.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS
As well as the issues relating to the problematic
interface between protected areas and develop-
ment, over the coming century a major global
challenge facing protected areas and the bio-
diversity that they conserve is adapting to climate
change. This is, of course, a predicament that
affects all aspects of human endeavor, not only
protected areas, and is dependent upon the
resolution of wide-ranging issues at the highest
political levels and across all strata of society.
Nevertheless, protected areas need to be a central
strategy in the amelioration of climate change
impacts on ecosystems.
Climate change provides a critical argument
for, and underscores the urgency of, not only
ensuring the protection and management of our
existing conservation areas, but also expanding
present national systems into an effective global
network. Even though protected areas are wide-
ranging across the Earth's biomes, they are highly
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and
tend to already exist as remnants in modified
landscapes. Adaptation to climate change at the
species and ecosystem levels, where adaptation is
feasible, will include the ability of species to shift
latitudinally and altitudinally. One of our greatest
challenges, therefore, is to strengthen the capacity
of protected areas to provide for these potential
lateral and vertical shifts. This will require
enhanced levels of cooperation within and between
countries to develop effective ecological networks
and corridors that work across intranational and
international geopolitical boundaries, and to
engage in landscape-scale ecological restoration.
In recent years, the concept of ecological
networks has gained increasing support as a
mechanism for enhancing connectivity between
protected areas, and protecting remaining bio-
diversity not contained within declared conservation
sites. While many existing networks are based on
contiguous landscape connectivity, others help to
conserve migratory species by protecting breeding
and stopover sites scattered across the globe; for
example, migratory waterbird agreements such as
the East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Site Network
and the Bonn Convention Agreement on the Con-
servation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds
iBennettand Wit, 2001).
Almost 50 percent of the total number of the
world's protected areas are in Europe, although
most are very small and collectively they constitute
only 4 percent of the total global area protected. The
ecological network approach has therefore gained
considerable momentum in Europe with the devel-
opment of the Pan-European Ecological Network
IPEENI Isee Figure 7.31 to enhance ecological
connectivity in the region, and in Central America,
with the establishment of the Meso-American
Biological Corridor These examples provide an
indication of what can be achieved, and it is this type
of large-scale cooperative ecological planning that
must occur across all continents if we are to build
adaptability into protected area networks to meet
the challenges of climate change and existing
issues associated with habitat fragmentation.
In addition to developing and implementing
As a result of global
climate change, the
ecological viability
of small protected
areas will likely be
dependent on effective
connectivity through
ecological networks -
Mt Egmont National
Park, New Zealand.
171
The world's protected areas
FIGURE 7.3:
PAN-EUROPEAN
ECOLOGICAL
NETWORK
The Pan-European
Ecological Network
is an example of
the transnational
cooperative ecological
planning that must
occur if we are to
build adaptability into
protected-area
networks to meet the
challenges of climate
change and habitat
fragmentation.
■ill Alpine gras5l3ndB and shrubs
^111
Ml S3ll marshes and salmes
^11
^111 Aillorests
■ilV
^■1 MoisI grasslands
^11
^■111 Olher gresslands and shrubs
^IV
Size classes (related to core areasi
surface area requirement of the Indicator
species
I less than 70%
II between 70% and 90%
III between 70% and 100%
IV 5 times threshold 111
• Internationally acknowledged areas
Internationally and nationally designated
Corridors
i — > Search areas tor corridors (tor lorest
habitatsi
strategies tor improving connectivity of protected
areas anid proviiding for the movement of species,
protected areas have value in mitigating some of the
broader impacts of climate change. Almost all are
fundamental for human development and survival,
through, for example:
□ retention of vegetated catchments, especially
forests, to protect water supplies;
Q retention of large forest and wetland eco-
systems to reduce levels of emissions (from
deforestation or breakdown of below-ground
carbon reserves); assist in absorption of
Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2; and
ameliorate changes In regional rainfall patterns;
□ protection of upland forests and other
vegetation to reduce the Impact of storms on
soil and slope stability;
□ protection of inland areas from the Impacts of
cyclonic waves and storm surge by mangroves
and other coastal systems. Allowance for
natural (managed) retreat of these systems as
sea levels rise will continue this role Into the
future;
□ protection of fish breeding and migration
areas, and associated habitats, allowing
greater resilience of important fish-stocks
against changes in water temperature and
current patterns;
□ provision of livelihood buffers of managed
natural resources - Including non-timber
forest products, wild foods, and water supplies
- tor local rural communities In times of food
crop deficits arising from droughts and
depredation by pests;
□ retention of genetic diversity for restoring
degraded ecosystems; and
Q the potential for better control of disease
vectors (predicted to extend their ranges as a
result of climate change) by natural predators
In protected areas.
In the coming decades there will be Increased
availability of monitoring technology to protected-
area managers especially In developing countries,
such as interactive satellite Imagery (see Box 7.A]-
This will greatly assist monitoring and modelling of
ecosystem changes In protected areas to enable
better management responses to deal with
environmental change Issues.
RESOURCING THE FUTURE
Support for effective management and protection of
conservation areas still requires a permanent,
widespread solution. Participants at the Vth World
Parks Congress concluded that there was almost
universal underinvestment by governments In
protected areas, with the result that they often
lack effective protection and management and
172
Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century
therefore fail to meet their conservation and social
objectives. This situation undoubtedly stems in
large measure from the fact that protected areas
often lack broad public support. Indeed, specific
groups, from local peoples to multinational
corporations, often see protected areas as actual
barriers to their activities and aspirations. It is
scarcely surprising, therefore, that protected areas
are generally accorded low investment priority by
governments. Not only is there acknow/ledged to be
inadequate direct investment, but a range of
subsidies and other financial instruments and
institutional arrangements often act perversely and
have a negative impact on protected areas and
more generally biodiversity.
Participants at the Vth World Parks Congress
estimated that an annual sum in the region of
US$ 20-30 billion would be required over the next
3D years to establish and maintain a comprehensive
protected-areas system including terrestrial, wet-
land, and marine ecosystems. This is of a similar
order of magnitude for, but somewhat lower than,
an estimate of some US$ 45 billion made by
Balmford etai in 2002. They estimated that US$ 6.5
billion was actually spent annually on the existing
protected area network. Not only is this
considerably less than the amount needed, it is
also highly inequitably distributed, with half spent
in the USA alone.
The sum required might seem large, but it
pales into insignificance when set against the
economically and ecologically perverse subsidies,
estimated globally at US$ 950-1 950 billion
annually, that continue to drive habitat loss. For
example, the MA I2005bl reports that agricultural
sector subsidies paid to the OECD countries
alone between 2001 and 2003 averaged over
US$ 32A billion annually, with a significant
proportion leading to overproduction, reducing the
profitability of agriculture in developing countries
and thus helping to perpetuate rural poverty that
leads to much of the pressure on protected areas in
those countries. The amount required to better
conserve the world's natural heritage is also
insignificant compared to global expenditure on the
most destructive human activity: war and conflict,
estimated at US$ 1 035 billion in 2004 I5IPRI 20051.
The problem of chronic under-resourcing and
The Vth World Parks
Congress estimated that
an annual sum in the
region of US$ 20-30
billion v\fould be
required over the next
30 years to establish
and maintain a
comprehensive
protected-areas system,
including terrestrial,
wetland, and marine
ecosystems. Los
Gtaciares National Park
and World Heritage
Area, Argentina.
173
The world's protected areas
BOX 7.4: THE ROLE OF REMOTE SENSING IN PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Gary N. Geller, Protected Areas Conservation Liaison, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA
Observations of Earth from space or aircraft are
playing an increasingly significant role in protected
areas management. The main uses include a range
of sophistication levels, from simply lool<lng at color
images to detailed quantitative analysis and
computer modeling. Extracting the full value from
these observations, however, requires mal<ing the
data and tools more user-friendly so they are
accessible to users whose expertise is in
conserAOtion management.
Perspective and context. An image facilitates
understanding of a site and its context. For example.
It puts the size of a protected area, which may seem
large from the ground, into perspective, and helps
the viewer to recognize the significance of finite
boundaries. Because features withm a protected
area are often obvious from space, an image may
help provide an understanding of problems or
potential problems that may otherwise be missed,
such as the extent of agricultural encroachment
around and within a protected area.
Communication. Satellite images can be a powerful
communication aid because they can convey certain
problems much better than words can. For example,
an image showing agricultural encroachment into a
protected area can be immediately understood, and
have more impact than words. Such an image can
also be very difficult to argue with. mal<ing images a
useful advocacy tool.
Historical value. For conservation management, an
image should be considered as a biophysical dataset
captured at a particular point in time. An image
archive can thus be extremely valuable in
understanding how an area has changed over time,
or for establishing a "baseline" condition to be used
as a reference for historical and future comparisons.
Maps and measurements. Satellite images can be
used for a variety of maps and measurements. One
of the most significant is the classified vegetation or
land-use map, where each pixel in an image is
assigned a particular "class" representing its
vegetation type or land use. However, generating
such maps typically requires fairly intensive
groundwork to achieve sufficient accuracy. This is
due to the limitations of the available and affordable
technology, primarily spatial and spectral resolution,
though also image processing and analysis tools.
But there are many simpler uses for images,
including generating maps of roads or management
units, measuring area and distance, assessing
encroachment, or as an aid to fieldworl<. Also,
images make an excellent "base map" upon which
other kinds of data - such as management units,
poaching incidents, fire history, census, poverty, or
any type of spatially referenced dataset - can be
overlaid. Bringing these datasets together with a
satellite image can be very revealing.
Modeling and ecological forecasting. One active
area that is likely to change much over the next
decade is the use of remote sensing data in
predictive models that will help protected-areas
managers assess the consequences of alternate
scenarios. For example, past trends in deforestation,
as determined from a series of satellite images, can
be used to predict future forest extent in and around
lack of political commitment is most clearly seen in
(but not limited to) developing countries, which hold
much of the world's threatened biodiversity and
most important protected areas, and many of which
are faced with rapidly growing populations often in
rural areas, high levels of poverty and
unemployment, and low levels of health, education,
and basic infrastructure. The stability of governance
in a number of these countries, at national.
provincial, and community levels, is further strained
by conflict, epidemic diseases, and/or endemic
institutional corruption. As a result, the resources
available for effective management of conservation
areas are usually minimal - despite the best
intentions at the national policy level in initially
establishing protected areas.
Currently the viability of protected areas is
often maintained through the efforts of dedicated
174
Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century
Source: NASA/GSFC/ METI/ERSDAC/JAR05. and US/Japan ASTER Science Team
a park. Somewhat more sophisticated is the
potential to use models in assessing the impact of
climate change. For example, a variety of satellite-
derived environmental parameters can be used to
determine the relationship between environmental
variables and species habitat; then, using climate
models, the range of an important species under
various climatic regimes can be predicted. Such
environmental measurements can also be used to
predict a variety of parameters that may be of use to
protected areas managers, such as water availability
for wildlife, or fire risl< Ifor example, seeecocast.arc.
nasa.govl. As new models become available, existing
models improve, and all become easier to use, more
and more model-based tools will become available
for protected areas management.
[Monitoring. Another active area is the use of remote
sensing for monitoring protected areas. Monitoring
can be done in two ways. The simplest, which could
be called "watchful eye" monitoring, is to manually
review images for problems and changes (good and
badi in and around a protected area. A step up in
sophistication is to automate this process, which is
just getting underway, with, for example, the use of
an automated fire detection and reporting system
Isee http://map5.ge0g. umd.edul. Monitoring may
also be more formalized and extract specific.
quantitative indicators such as deforestation or
reforestation, fragmentation and connectivity, and
threats such as density of road networl<s or
agricultural expansion. Indicator development using
Earth observation data is an area of much research
activity with a range of sophistication levels. For
satellite-aided monitoring to become widespread
among the 100 000-plus protected areas, however,
the data and tools to use it will need to become more
accessible. An excellent reference on satellite-aided
biodiversity monitoring is available at http://biodiv.
org/doc/ publications/cbd-ts-32.pdf.
Addressing the access problem. For remote sensing
to become a widespread technology among protected
areas managers it will need to be made easier to
use. Currently, most of the tools for finding and
using satellite images are for experienced users,
and while training is gradually increasing the
capacity of the conservation community, the tools
need to become both simpler and friendlier One
recent approach to addressing this problem is called
TerraLool<. TerraLook combines collections of
images on a particular theme Isuch as the protected
areas of a particular country or region] with simple
tools to find and use them. It is designed for users
who have no experience using satellite images.
TerraLook is available at http://terralook.crusgs.gov.
Ichkeul National Park
World Heritage Site in
Tunisia badly
deteriorated as ttie
result of the
construction of ttiree
dams on rivers
supplying it and its
marslies. The dams cut
off almost all inflow of
fresh water, causing a
destructive increase in
the salinity of the lake
and marshes. Reed
beds, sedges and other
freshwater plant
species have been
replaced with salt-
loving plants, with a
consequent sharp
reduction in the
migratory bird
populations dependent
on the habitat the lake
formerly provided. The
Tunisian Government
plans to undertake
various measures to
retain freshwater in the
lake on a year-round
basis and reduce the
salinity of the lake. The
two ASTER 3-2-1 RGB
composites depict
vegetation in shades of
red. In 2005, the water
level is higher than
2001, but a large part of
the lake appears red
due to the presence of
aquatic plants.
staff in head offices in capital cities and in the field,
and in many developing countries supported by
bilateral or multilateral donors. Often the problem
with donor support is its short-term nature, often
tied to three-to-five-year funding cycles, the
political agendas of the donor countries
themselves, loan conditions lin the case of the
multilateral banks), and the frequent inability of
donor funds to meet recurrent management costs.
In 1999, James et al. estimated that donor funding
only supported about 20 percent of total expenditure
on nature reserves in developing countries. In some
countries, official development assistance is sup-
plemented or even replaced by direct financial and
technical assistance from privately funded inter-
national conservation organizations. Although the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) has provided
millions of dollars for conservation activities.
175
The world's protected areas
Balmford and Whitten (2003) noted that in the case
of tropical conservation, there is little evidence that
the level of donor support has increased signif-
icantly since the first commitments in the early
1990s. They also suggested that the recent broad-
ening of the scope of GEF funding to cover land
degradation and persistent organic pollutants will
dilute the funds available for conservation.
The ecological benefits of protected areas are
global and their value will increase as pressures
intensify on unprotected natural resources and as
global environmental change continues. There is a
need for equity in the disbursement of the real costs
of developing countries maintaining protected areas
for the global good - the high level of global benefits
accruing from protected natural ecosystems needs
to be reflected in the way we support protected
areas. Balmford ef a/. 12002) calculated that a
"hypothetical global reserve network" costing some
US$ 20-45 billion per year would ensure the delivery
of goods and services with an annual value (net of
benefits from conversion) of between about US$ U 400
billion and U5$ 5 200 billion, depending on the level
of resource use permitted within protected areas - a
cost benefit ratio of around 100:1.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
As a species, we are faced with enormous
challenges to manage the Earth sustainably and
equitably in the coming century and beyond.
Increasing realization of the scale of our problem
has prompted considerable international agree-
ment on what needs to be done, including estab-
lishment and effective management of protected
areas as a key mechanism for conserving what
remains of our dwindling biodiversity - with hopes
that such action wilt also have wider "benefits
beyond boundaries".
International discussion now focuses on the
role of protected areas as part of global con-
servation strategies and ecological networks, and
the extensive growth of the conservation estate
has reflected increasing political commitment at
national levels. But, as always, political commit-
ment needs to be followed by action - simply
adding more areas to comply with the statistical
objectives of global agreements will not do. This
means action at all levels of protected area
planning and management, as well as effective
integration of site-based conservation into wider
development planning and broader response
strategies to fundamental Issues such as climate
change, poverty reduction, energy, and cessation
of armed conflict - and not as a competing or
lower priority. Most Importantly, the values and
Importance of protected areas must be reflected in
the provision of sufficient resources, and the
recognition of and support for diverse governance
models. In short, we need to apply the adopted
principles and goals of the CBD Programme of
Work on Protected Areas, but within realistic and
manageable time frames.
If these issues are addressed, building on the
obvious synergies with all elements of environ-
mental and development agendas, protected areas
will succeed over the long term as key global,
national, and local conservation mechanisms .
Certainly there is cause for optimism in the
recent actions of some governments, such as the
2006 announcement by Para State in Brazil to
conserve almost 150 000 km in Amazonia and the
2005 decision by Micronesian countries in the
Pacific to conserve 30 percent of near shore marine
areas and 20 percent of forests by 2015. Equally, at
the community level more and more communities
are conserving areas and placing them under
sustainable use regimes, such as the locally
managed marine areas In Fiji and other countries.
What we are seeing, and what needs to be fostered
and strengthened at all levels of society, are crucial
cultural, political, and scientific responses to the
interrelated threats to nature and human survival
as we deal with the enormous environmental and
social challenges of the 21 st century.
176
Regional analysis
Regional Analysis
This chapter assesses the extent of the
world's protected area coverage, and
planning and management issues, on a
regional basis. There are a number of
different schemes used by international organiz-
ations to divide the w/orld into regional units, but
most of these are very broad scale. For its
purposes, the lUCN World Commission on Pro -
tected Areas IWCPA) has divided the world
(excluding Antarctica, see Chapter II into 15
regions on the basis of geographical, geopolitical,
and/or linguistic factors:
North America
Caribbean
Central America
Brazil
South America
Europe
West and Central Africa
Eastern and Southern Africa
North Africa and Middle East
Northern Eurasia
South Asia
East Asia
Southeast Asia
Australia and New Zealand
Pacific
Overall these divisions are a useful way of
reviewing the global status of protected areas.
However, for the purposes of presenting coherent
geographic analyses, they are not without
difficulties when the basis for defining a region
includes a linguistic criterion. For example, the
West and Central Africa region includes the
francophone island states of the Indian Ocean,
which from a geographic perspective are more
efficiently dealt with in the context of Eastern and
Southern Africa. Similarly, Brazil is an artificially
separated region within the South American
continent. In the case of West and Central Africa
adjustments have been made in this chapter to
improve geographic coherence.
The regional analyses follow a standard
format covering regional description, historical
perspective, extent of national and international
protected areas, and an assessment of future
directions. These analyses have been undertaken
by regional experts, including WCPA regional
vice chairs.
The protected area data used here for each
region are derived from analyses undertaken in
2007 using 2005 information held in the World
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). It should be
noted that revision and updating of the database,
using national agency and other sources, is an
ongoing process and statistical information
currently held in the WDPA for individual countries
and for regions may vary from the information
presented in these analyses.
177
North America
North America
Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Mexico,
St Pierre and Miquelon (France),
United States of America
Contributor: A. Turner
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
North America has a combined population of more
than 425 million people and is primarily governed by
three federal, 82 state, 10 provincial, and three
territorial governments with responsibilities for
protected areas. Greenland, although closely tied to
Denmark, has self rule, with a population of 57 000
in three regions. St Pierre and Miquelon is a tiny
territorial collective' of France with a population of
some 7 000. IThe US state of Hawaii is considered in
the statistics to be part of the Pacific region.)
North America is distinguished from other
continents by the diversity of its ecosystems,
ranging from tundra to tropical. Many terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine ecosystem types are shared
among the countries, in addition to the pathways of
migratory species, ranging from songbirds and
butterflies to waterfowl and whales.
Permanent snow and ice cover more than
80 percent of Greenland, and are also widespread
on some of the Arctic islands of northern Canada.
The Arctic tundra and taiga north of the treeline
gives way to boreal forests throughout the lower
two thirds of Canada. Temperate forest eco-
systems stretch from the Great Lakes region to
cover much of the eastern third of the USA, and
extend southward through the western mountains
into Mexico.
Mountain ranges form a spine dividing the
western quarter of the continent, giving rise to
complex ecosystems such as the Cordillera and
Sierras. Mountains also strongly influence the
climate of the northwest temperate rainforests as
well as the intermontane desert ecosystems and
Great Plains that stretch down the continent from
Canada to Mexico.
Tropical dry forest ecosystems begin near the
Mexican-USA border in the foothills of western
Mexico's mountains, spreading southwards to
Central America. Tropical humid forest ecosystems
are found primarily along the Gulf of Mexico coast
and the Yucatan Peninsula.
North American marine ecosystems are
equally diverse - Arctic waters, under permanent
to semi-permanent sea ice, give way to productive
open water that supports large populations of
marine mammals. The western Atlantic, with an
extensive continental shelf, and warm Gulf Stream
Current and cold Labrador Current, has produced
a highly productive marine environment and, as a
result, a centuries-old fisheries industry, now
heavily depleted.
The eastern Pacific's cold temperate to
tropical waters are influenced by the North Pacific
Current, Alaska Gyre, and Davidson and California
currents. Many species such as gray whales and
sea otters range along the entire western coast.
Upwellings within the Alaska Gyre have created one
of the world's most productive areas for marine
invertebrates.
Coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico feature
biologically diverse estuarine ecosystems, man-
groves, saltmarshes, and tidal marshes, while the
Caribbean Sea contains extensive coral reef and
seagrass bed habitat.
In terms of identifying and prioritizing areas
for conservation importance, there are some 50
centers of plant diversity located right across the
179
The world's protected areas
30°N
BE.iUFORTSE.-l
UNITED STATES
r AMERICA
Greenland (DNK)
' 'e
&
■^'i
f r
• •=' CANADA
"dP
* -UNITED STAfES .4 ••»"** " ■"
PACIFIC
OCE4N
.:>n , OF AMERICA
• r/« v>
*•' Saint Pierre &
Miquelon (ERA)
■Bd
180° w lyo'w'*^
Aleutian ' .
»_ Islands (USA) JW
300 600 900 km
Source
130"W
UNEP-WCMC
120°W
110°W
100*W 90*W
-I-
300 600 900 km
80°W
180
North America
region. By contrast, endemic bird areas are largely
restricted to Mexico, with only two in the US
nnainland and none elsewhere. At a broader level
some 31 priority ecoregions (WWF Global 2001
have been recognized, covering wide areas of
Mexico, the western seaboard and mountains of
the USA, the Appalachian region, and wide areas
of Arctic biomes.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Prior to European settlement in North America,
indigenous peoples recognized and respected
special areas such as productive wild game areas
and sacred sites. European settlement brought
temporary protection of selected areas in response
to advancing settlement and resource harvesting.
Formal long-term protection began about UO years
ago when areas were set aside for their outstanding
scenery, and economic and recreational benefits. In
1864 the natural landscape of the Yosemite Valley
and the giant sequoias of Mariposa Grove in
California were first protected. The first national
parks (Yellowstone (18721, Banff (1885), and
Desietro de Los Leones (19171 were all protected
natural landscapes around springs.
Other sites were soon established for the
protection of wild species. Last Mountain Lake
(1 8871 in Saskatchewan protected critical habitat for
migratory waterfowl, while Pelican Island In Florida
was established as a federal bird reservation In
1903. Isla Guadalupe (19281 protected the unique
biodiversity of the island and surroundings.
Including three varieties of seal.
The protection of forest and freshwater
resources were also seen as Important criteria for
setting up protected areas. Examples Include many
CordiUeran mountain parks and the Algonquin
Provincial Park in Ontario. Areas protected for their
Intrinsic ecological or wilderness values began with
Gila Wilderness in New Mexico in 1924.
Protecting marine ecosystems dates back to
the earliest coastal wildlife refuges (Pelican Island,
19031 and bird sanctuaries that protected the Inter-
tidal habitat of migratory and other species,
although the first sites to offer protection to subtidal
resources came later. Today there are marine
protected areas across the regions, including parks,
marine ecological areas, no-take reserves, and
multiple-use zones.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
In the past 30 years the number of sites (lUCN
Protected Area Management Categories l-VIl
across North America has almost tripled to 13 554,
and the area protected has increased to more than
4.10 million km2, to Include about 17.3 percent of
the total land area. Protected areas that prohibit
extractive activities (primarily lUCN Categories l-llll
account for just under half of this area.
Protected area statistics for the region are
heavily Influenced by one site, the Greenland
National Park, which is the largest protected area in
North America: Growth of protected areas network, 1872-2005
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
E
o 1500
p
1000
500
■ Cumulative area of sites witli known establisiiment date (km^))
_ ■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km^)
■■■■lllllll
187275 '80 '90 ■951900r05'10'15 '20 '25 '30 '35 ■40'45'50'55 ■60'65 ■70 75 '80 ■85'90'9520DO'05
181
The world's protected areas
S Chape
Yosemite National Park, USA, a World Heritage Site.
182
North America
■ Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
■ Cumulative number of sites with unl<nown establishment date
dates based on date entered into WDPA
nil
1
7 000
6 000
5 000
„ 4 000
V
'in
3 000
2 000
1 000
1872'75 '80 90 •951900'05'10'15'20 25 ■30'35 •40'45'50'55 iOiS ■70 75 '80 •85'90952000'05
North America: Growrth In the number of protected areas. 1872-2005
the world at 972 000 km^. If Greenland is left out,
the proportion of the land surface of the region
protected comes closer to 15 percent. In addition to
this, designated in 197^, several other large pro-
tected areas in the vast northern areas of Canada
and Alaska have been declared since the 1980s.
None of the countries can yet claim full
representation of ecological regions within their
protected area systems, although boreal habitats
are generally well represented at the regional level.
Only about 1 .2 percent of the region's very extensive
marine areas (out to 200 nautical milesl are
protected In 754 marine protected areas covering
218 000 km2 (not including Hawaiil.
In Canada the federal agency Parks Canada
has responsibility for some 300 000 km^ of lUCN
Category II protected areas. Along with many of its
provincial and territorial counterparts, it has
adopted park establishment strategies based on the
representation of various ecosystem types. Parks
Canada also has a newly legislated National Marine
Conservation Areas program, also based on
ensuring ecosystem representation. The Canadian
Areas of North America protected (by country], 2005
Wildlife Service manages a network of national
wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recently
begun establishing a network of marine protected
areas IMPAsl. The Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks
Canada. British Columbia, and Newfoundland have
all designated MPAs, but the total still represents
only a very small fraction of Canada's enormous 15.6
million km2| exclusive economic zone (EEZl. Almost
all provinces and territories have ecological or
wilderness area programs (lUCN II and wildlife
areas (lUCN IVl.
The most comprehensive protection in the
USA is found within the national park network
administered by the US National Parks Service.
However, very large tracts of the landscape (lUCN
Categories V and VI) are managed through other
federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land
Management, the US Forest Service, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Except for national parks, only
a small fraction of the total area is managed as
wilderness, although many areas contain sub-
stantial biodiversity conservation value. The Depart-
Country/territories
Canada
Land area (km^)
9 970 610
Total protected area Ikm^)
861 300
Total number of sites
5A55
Greenland
2 175 600
980 099
7
Mexico
1 958 200
195 950
193
St Pierre and Miquelon
240
127
6
USA
9 612 453
2 063 337
7 833
183
The world's protected areas
Agreements and policies (by country)
Convention, legislation, agreement, or policy Coverage
North American Agreement on Environmental North America
Cooperation Iside agreement to NAFTAl
Key role re protected areas IPAs)
Commission on Environmental
Cooperation facilitates continental
cooperation on land and marine PA
systems and biodiversity protection
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network
North America
Links PAs within hemispheric migratory
routes
UN Convention on Biological Diversity
Canada/Mexico
Agree to complete PA systems to
protect biodiversity
Cartagena Convention
Mexico/USA
Protocol on specially protected areas &
wildlife
Canada National Parks Act
Canada
Protects ecological integrity in national
parks
Canada Oceans Act
Canada
Enables establishment of marine
protected areas
Species at Risk Act
Canada
Identifies critical habitat requiring
protection
National Park Sen/ice Organic Act
USA
Balances protection of nature and visitor
use
Land and Water ConseiA/ation Fund
USA
Protects land and recreational activities
MPA Executive Order 13158
USA
Strengthens and expands a national MPA
system
General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and
Environment Protection (Ley General del
Equilibrio Ecologico y la Proteccion al
Ambiente - LGEEPAl
Mexico
Directs a multi-stakeholder approach to
PA management
Federal Fisheries Law (Ley Federal de Pascal
Mexico
Uses reserves and fishing bans to
repopulate and preserve fisheries
ments of Commerce and the Interior through other
agencies, especially the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAAl and the Fish
and Wildlife Service, are strengthening and
expanding a national system of MPAs by vi/orking
closely with state, territorial, local, tribal, and other
stakeholders. When complete, such a system will
include most existing terrestrial-based design-
ations as well as fishery management zones,
marine sanctuaries, critical habitats, research and
no-take reserves.
Mexico's protected areas network comprises
six federal categories - biosphere reserves,
national parks, flora and fauna protection areas,
sanctuaries, natural monuments, and natural
resource protection areas - making up a national
system of protected areas ISINAPI. Of these
categories, the first four have been applied in the
marine environment. The Comision Nacional de
Areas Naturales Protegidas (CONANPl is the main
agency establishing Mexico's protected areas.
including MPAs. A total of 193 sites are listed in the
World Database on Protected Areas, and although
these probably include most or all of the federal
sites, and the largest sites, it is estimated that
there may be more than 500 protected areas if
all state, municipal, and private protected areas
are included.
Significant gaps in protection remain to be
addressed. These include tallgrass and shortgrass
prairie, Sonoran desert, freshwater areas such as
the Mississippi watershed, temperate forests,
tropical dry forests, coastal estuaries, and marine
ecosystems.
The past decade has seen a number of
important political and legislative changes that are
influencing protected areas at the continental,
regional, and national levels. Some major examples
are outlined in the table.
There are also a growing number of players
involved in the establishment and management of
protected areas, including local and indigenous
184
North America
peoples, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
such as land trusts, and an increasing number of
stakeholders who are practicing land and sea
stewardship. New agencies, such as CONANP in
Mexico, have been created to oversee diverse
protected area activities. Securing protected areas
has thus become an increasingly complex business;
however cooperation has greatly improved, at
scales from local to Americas-wide.
Other forms of protection
Innovative protected area strategies involving
NGOs, landowners, coastal communities, local
agencies, and indigenous communities are an
increasingly important complement to govern-
ment efforts. Private protected areas, particularly
those established and run by NGOs, are wide-
spread across the region. Information on many
of these is held in the WDPA, but the work
remains incomplete. There is a lack of coord-
ination within and between NGOs, and at the
present time the gathering of such information
requires approaching (and getting responses from)
hundreds of separate sources.
In Canada private non-government work is
most active and effective in southern Canada.
Organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, numerous
nature trusts, and private conservancies are
obtaining protection through mechanisms ranging
from land purchases to landowner agreements.
Initiatives such as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) provide funding to
facilitate such agreements. Changes to federal tax
laws have attracted the donation of private,
ecologically valuable land to registered con-
servation agencies. The total land area secured
through private means is unknown but reaches
many tens of thousands of square kilometers.
Government agencies are now routinely
collaborating with stakeholders, including indig-
enous and local communities, in the establishment
of national parks and MPAs, and there are growing
numbers of examples of co-management. Multi-
stakeholder partnerships have become an imp-
ortant means of reconciling diverse interests on
working landscapes and seascapes.
In the USA there is a long history of including
private sector ownership within protected areas.
The Nature Conservancy ITNC) has established
more than 1 500 preserves in the USA with nearly
39 000 km2 protected. Other private land con-
servation programs include the Conservation Fund,
North America: Protected areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area Ikm^)
la
839
66 384
lb
700
472 435
II
1 3A5
1 657 785
II
590
72 589
IV
1 33A
611315
V
2 075
134 971
V!
1 425
1 015 141
No category
5 206
70 193
Total
13 554
4 100 813
North America: Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area protected), 2005
No
cat (2%)
la 12%)
lb 111%)
VI (25%)
II 140%)
ill (2%)
North America: Protected areas by lUCN category
(percentage of protected areas), 2005
6 000 r
5 000
6 000
3 000
2 000
1 000 -
la lb II
IV V IV category
185
The world's protected areas
Ducks Unlimited, and Trout Unlimited. The Land
Trust Alliance, a national collective, controls devel-
opment on some 20 000 km^ secured through
landowner agreements. Operation Stronghold, an
alliance of 800 to 900 private landholders who have
undertaken conservation measures, protects an
estimated further 20- 25 000 km^ of private land.
Some marine protection is now being gained
through leasing arrangements.
Community protected areas within the
Mexican communal landholding system lEjidos
and Comunidadesl are rapidly gaining importance
in states with large indigenous populations such
as Oaxaca. Private conservation mechanisms
are also now increasingly being adopted in Mexico,
mainly through TNC's in-country partners, incl-
uding conservation easements llegally binding
agreements where landowners can permanently
limit the type and amount of development on their
property in perpetuity], transfer of development
rights, and direct acquisitions. An innovative
compensation mechanism has been established to
protect the core zone of the Monarch Butterfly
Biosphere Reserve, in which landowners are
compensated for not harvesting timber with winter
habitat value.
International sites
Large tracts of the region have been designated
under one or more of the three major international
conventions, totaling some 1.85 million km^,
although this statistic is once again dominated by
Greenland and the 972 000 km^ Greenland
Biosphere Reserve. Most of this area is also legally
protected through in-country designations.
Collectively there are 73 biosphere reserves
across the region, the first dating back to 1976.
The continental USA has A3; Mexico has 16;
Canada 13; and Greenland one. Mexico has
implemented a national Biosphere Reserve
program, consisting of 26 sites, that is modeled on
the UNESCO program.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance has designated 134 sites
across North America, with sites dating back to
the 1980s. Most recent sites have been in Mexico,
which designated 3A new sites in 2004, including
some very large coastal and marine sites such
as Laguna Madre, Archipielago de Revillagigedo,
and Laguna de Terminos. Canada's 37 sites
under Ramsar have remained stable since 1996.
The largest Ramsar site is Queen Maud Gulf
North America: Internationally protected areas,
2005
Country No. of
sites
Biosphere reserves
Protected
area Ikm^l
Canada
13
48 529
Greenland
1
972 000
Mexico
16
71 697
USA'
a
312 250
TOTAL
73
1 404 476
Ramsar sites
Canada
37
130 666
Greenland
1 1
13 423
Mexico
65
52 639
USA2
21
13 031
TOTAL
134
209 759
World Heritage sites
Canada^
8
106 635
Greenland
1
4 024
Mexico
o
27 370
United States^.'
11
100 407
TOTAL
23
238 436
1 Four further biosphere reserves are found in the US Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii and are not included here.
2 One further Ramsar site is found in Hawaii and is not included
here
3 There are two transboundary V\'orld Heritage sites between the
USA and Canada - Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/
Tatshenshlni-Atsek; and Waterton Glacier International Peace
Park - and hence the total figure for numbers of sites is lower
than the sum of all country totals
^ One further World Heritage site is found in Hawaii and is not
included here.
in Canada's Northwest Territories which extends
over 62 000 km?.
UNESCO's World Heritage program has
designated 23 sites for their natural heritage
values. The largest of these is Kluane/Wrangell-
St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek, with
86 000 km2, straddling parts of British Columbia,
Yukon, and Alaska. One of the most recent, the
llulissat Icefjord in Greenland inscribed in 2004, is
one of the world's most active glaciers - moving at
19 meters per day.
In addition to the three major global protected
area agreements, other global and regional
conventions and treaties include provisions to
safeguard species and ecosystems, thereby
influencing protected area efforts. Examples
186
North America
include the Migratory Birds Convention (Canada,
USA), the Cartagena Convention (Caribbean,
Mexico, USA), the North American Plant Protection
Agreement, and the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity [Canada, Mexico).
An increasing number of species and eco-
system conservation agreements exist between
the countries, including the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan and the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Initiative. The countries
are also linked through economic, social, and
cultural interaction. The Commission tor Environ-
mental Cooperation (CEO was created under the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTAI to
facilitate this cooperation with respect to the
conservation, protection, and enhancement of the
North American environment.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The extent and complexity of North America's
natural diversity demands an ecosystem approach
to selecting new areas and to managing all
Hoh Rainforest, Olympic National Park World Heritage Site, Washington State, USA.
187
The world's protected areas
areas. Managing for ecological integrity while
including socioeconomic interests will be a
significant challenge.
The need for an ecosystem approach is
heightened by a significant increase in the level of
threat to the species and ecosystems that protected
areas are designed to protect. These threats include
land and marine uses surrounding and within
protected areas, visitor impacts, resource har-
vesting practices, invasive species, pathogens,
pollution, and climate change. Impacts from these
threats include habitat degradation and fragment-
ation, species losses, and reduced ecological
integrity. Assessing and managing the combined
impact of all threats is an ongoing challenge to
ecologists and managers.
Key continental directions are discussed
below.
Connecting nature
Large-scale programs are linking protected areas
and the landscapes or seascapes in-between. The
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative has
provided a large-scale vision of both protection and
sustainable use. The North American MPA Network
and the Baja to Bering initiatives seek to protect
ecologically critical ecosystems and promote
integrated management for the marine and coastal
waters of North America and the eastern Pacific,
respectively. Mexico is involved in the Meso-
american Biological Corridor and the Meso-
american Caribbean Coral Reef Systems Initiative
as well as having its national biosphere reserve
program. The North American Bird Conservation
Initiative INABCII, the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Network, and other migratory species
initiatives create functionally connected networks of
protected areas across North America. Initiatives
that connect nature and people, and land and
ocean connections, are maturing and become
proving grounds for putting ecosystem manage-
ment principles into practice.
striving for a systems approach that could influence
other agencies throughout North America.
Mexico, through the National Commission for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
ICONABIOJ and other priority conservation exer-
cises, has identified a large number of candidate
sites waiting for the appropriate social or political
opportunity to secure them.
Establishment criteria based on other factors
such as ecological importance and uniqueness will
complement systematic approaches. CEC's
trinational focus on species of common conserv-
ation concern for grasslands, NABCIs priority-
setting exercise, and the Marine Species of
Common Conservation Concern program are
examples. Systematic planning for networks of
marine protected areas, such as through the North
American MPA Network initiative, and urban
protected areas are two growth areas.
Partnerships
The 100 or so major government agencies that
manage protected areas are developing closer ties
with scores of non-governmental agencies, special
interest groups, aboriginal peoples, and an
increasing number of individual stakeholders
committed to stewardship. Cooperation in
conservation appears to be the key operating
principle associated with marine protected areas'
identification, designation, and management.
Examples of agencies and programs whose
success relies on partnerships include NAWMP,
NABCI, Mexico's National Council of Nature
Protected Areas, the Neotropical Migrants Manage-
ment Plan, the US National Parks and Conservation
Association, the Wilderness Society, and Defenders
of Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the
Canadian Prairie Conservation Action Plan, and the
Mexican Biosphere Reserve model. For marine
areas, the North American MPA Network enables
the collaboration of more than 200 stakeholders
concerned with conserving marine biodiversity
Systematic planning
Common terrestrial and marine ecoregional
frameworks, which now exist for North America,
are instrumental in protected area systems
planning and connecting nature on a larger scale.
Completing federal, state, provincial, and territorial
protected area networks throughout North America
requires a well-planned systematic approach. The
NCAA's National Marine Sanctuaries Program is
Science, information, communication, and
education
Protected area experts must demonstrate through
good science and creative communication
methods that protected areas contribute to
emerging issues such as protecting endangered
species, conserving biodiversity, improving the
knowledge of climate change impacts, in addition
to contributing to a healthy economy. Developing
188
North America
effective information management technology and
procedures at multiple scales requires increased
sophistication to support the underlying science
and the development of ecological indicators.
Increasing use of state of environment, state of
parks, state of forests, and other reports helps to
assess and convey key messages about protected
areas. These and other means are aiding the
communication of science to the public and
decision makers, and support shifting societal
attitudes towards sustainability.
Financing
The rapid growth of North American protected
areas has generally been matched by decreasing
resources available to manage these areas. Finding
innovative financing mechanisms is critical to all
future work on protected areas. Harnessing public
support, lobbying, and education will help convince
government decision makers of the need for more
financing. A hopeful sign in Mexico has been a
1 500 percent growth of the federal budget assigned
for protected areas during the last decade, an
endowment fund to establish up to 22 areas, and
entrance fees earmarked for management needs,
resulting in improved management capacity for 61
protected areas. Other creative approaches such as
the generation of green revenue from protected
areas, providing more tax incentives for
conservation, and engaging the non-profit sector
will help ensure protected areas are fulfilling their
intended purposes into the future.
189
The world's protected areas
The Caribbean
Anguilla (UKl, Antigua AND Barbuda,
Aruba (Netherlands), Bahamas, Barbados,
Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK),
Cayman Islands (UK), Cuba, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Haiti,
Jamaica, Martinique (France), Montserrat (UK),
Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands),
Puerto Rico (USA), St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia,
St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK),
United States Virgin Islands (USA)
Contributors: R. Estrada, J. i Gerhartz, E. Hernandez, R. Fernandez de Arcita, J. A. Hernandez, P. Ruiz, A. Perera,
G. Bustamante, K. Lindeman, A. Vanzella Khouri
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION present-day landforms. The Greater Antilles were
The Caribbean region, as defined by the World largely formed by the strike-slip motion of the
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl, Caribbean Tectonic Plate against the North
incorporates the two major island chains that American Plate. By contrast the Lesser Antilles
border the north and the east of the Caribbean Sea, were formed by a more active subduction process,
the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and also the island and contain a number of active volcanoes, including
territories of the western Atlantic: the Bahamas, Morne Trois Pitons in Dominica, Soufriere in St
the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda. Lucia, Mont Pelee in Martinique, Soufriere in
Plate tectonics have created many of the Montserrat (which has been undergoing continuous
190
Caribbean
Jakub Jasinski/UNEP
Rainforest at El Yunque, Puerto Rico.
191
The world's protected areas
Source: UNEP-WCMC
Caribbean
destructive activity since 1 995), and the underwater
volcano 'Kick 'em Jenny,' near Grenada.
Limestone deposition tias also shaped this
region. The Bahamas archipelago Is built over a
series of shallow carbonate banks formed from
both coral deposits and the chemical precipitation
of limestone particles loolltesl. These limestone
deposits have also been modified into a wide variety
of karst landforms, including the marine terraces at
MaisI and Cabo Cruz, Cuba; the cavern systems In
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and the
Bahamas; and the more complex landforms of hills
and caves found In Vlhales (Cuba], Los Haitlses
(Dominican Republic], Pepino Hills (Puerto Rico),
and Cockpit Country (Jamaica). Collapsed sink-
holes or dollnes which have since been filled by the
sea have also formed the famous blue holes which
are found across the Bahamas.
The region includes more than 5 000 islands
and cays, with some 700 being more than 1 km^,
which constitute 25 Island nations or overseas
territories. Biogeographically the region traverses
the Tropic of Cancer, and encompasses a unique
and diverse array of landscapes, ranging from
ocean basins and deep troughs, coral reefs,
seagrass ecosystems, mangroves, and extensive
beaches, to mountains, forests, and semi-deserts.
Located between two continents the region has
been both a bridge and a barrier for species
movements, and a center of evolutionary processes.
Although occupying only about 0.1 percent of
the Earth's terrestrial surface, it is home to 2 to 3
percent of all known vertebrates and plant species.
The region includes five of the 237 ecoregions (the
Global 200) classified by WWF as areas of
conservation priority (Greater Antillean Marine,
Greater Antillean Freshwaters, Greater Antillean
Moist Forests, Greater Antillean Pine Forests,
Southern Caribbean Seal, while the entire region is
described by Conservation International as a
hotspot. About 58 percent of the 12 000 plant
species and about 51 percent of the 1 500 terrestrial
vertebrates are endemic. Cuba Is particularly
Important in terms of endemic species, and about
half of the region's 6 550 single-island endemic
plants are from Cuba. Taking the relation between
endemism and area, the insular Caribbean has one
of the highest endemism Indices In the world
(MIttermeler, Meyers & Mittermeier, 19991. Many
species, including lizards and birds such as trogons,
todies, and parrots, are endemic to single Islands,
or island groups. Almost all of the region has been
Incorporated Into a series of six endemic bird areas
by BIrdllfe International, and many species of bird
are restricted to single islands. For plants a slightly
different pattern has been recognized, with 12
centers of plant diversity.
Prior to European 'discovery' there had
already been several waves of human settlement,
with the first arrivals In Cuba dating back to 5 000-
6 000 BC. Three major groups were present before
the European arrival - the Clboney people,
restricted to parts of Cuba; the Arawak (Taino or
Lucayan) people across the Greater Antilles and the
Caribbean: Growth of protected areas network, 1910-2005
40
35
30
■ Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^)
— ■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^)
25
20
15
10 —
5 —
il
ml
1910 '15 '20 '25 30 '35 '40 45 50 55 '60 '65 '70 '75 80 85 90 '95 2000 05
193
The world's protected areas
800
700
600
500
0)
■5 400
300
200
100
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
i Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
- - ■ ■
I
1910 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
Caribbean: Grovrth In the number of protected areas, 1910-2005
Bahamas; and the Carib people in the Lesser
Antilles. European settlement wrought massive
changes, with the disappearance of these peoples
from most islands within one or two generations. A
few remain, but today the islands have developed a
complex mosaic of cultures and ethnic groups
combining indigenous American, Hispanic, African,
Anglo-Saxon, French, and Asian cultures.
Human influences on the natural environment
have been widespread, and most particularly over
the last three decades. There is evidence of
localized overfishing in a few islands even before
the arrival of Europeans, but since this time the
changes have been profound. Wide tracts of land
were cleared for plantation agriculture, while
population growth has driven agricultural clear-
ances high up on mountain slopes. Today less than
10 percent of the original vegetation remains, and
overfishing is reported everywhere.
The driving forces behind these problems
include local issues such as poverty, economic
inequality, or uncontrolled development, but inter-
national issues also impinge heavily on this region,
due to the small size and high degree of
connection between countries. Some issues, such
as fisheries, require attention at regional level.
Others, such as climate changes, the depletion of
the ozone layer, globalization, and the creation of
socioeconomic blocl<s and trade barriers, are
problems facing most parts of the world. There
remain, however, great opportunities for the
region including ongoing efforts for regional
integration, sustainable tourism, and the existing
and enhanced protection of unique and highly
valuable natural resources.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
With the widescale loss of traditions and cultures
from the original inhabitants of the Caribbean, there
is little information regarding any efforts they may
have made at natural resource management, such
as the closure or protection of wild areas. The
history of protected areas in the Caribbean thus
dates back to the colonial era, and to the first
protected area established in 1765. This site, the
Main Ridge Reserve of Tobago, was established as
woodlands for the protection of the rain' (Cross
1991). In 1791, the Kings Hill Reserve was
established in St Vincent for 'the purpose of
attracting the clouds and rain... for the benefit and
advantage of the owners and possessors of lands in
the neighborhood thereof (Birdsey, Weaver &
NIcholls, 19861.
The earliest marine protected area in the
western hemisphere were the Sea Gardens which
lay between Hog and Athol Islands in the Bahamas,
established in 1892 (although no longer regarded as
a protected area, these waters are still very popular
with tourists). Other protected areas were
established in Jamaica in 1907 (the Morant and
Pedro Cays, still nominally protected), Puerto Rico
(the Caribbean or Luquillo National Forest, 1907),
194
Caribbean
Grenada (Grand Etang Forest Reserve, 19101, and
Cuba (Sierra Cristal National Park, 19301.
Despite these relatively early origins, the
widescale declaration of protected areas was
relatively slow in the Caribbean region - even by the
mid-1980s fewer than ^00 sites had been declared
in the 25 territories. The monnentum for their
establishment has increased tremendously over the
last 20 years, however, particularly since the Earth
Summit held in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. This interest
has been enhanced in some cases by increasing
evidence of the economic and social value of
protected areas in supporting valuable ecotourism,
and in improving fisheries.
Caribbean: Protected areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area Ikm^l
la
11
183
lb
18
92
II
163
26 972
III
iO
497
IV
283
11 195
V
37
3 567
VI
192
22 222
No cateqory
223
3 467
Total
967
68 196
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)
lists some 967 protected areas in the region,
covering 68 196 km^. Over half of this area is
marine; however, the total land area protected is
still more than 36 000 km^, or almost 15.5 percent
of the region's terrestrial surface.
Notably, protected areas are concentrated in
(UCN Management Categories li, IV, and VI, and
indeed the stricter levels of protection (l-lil| make
up less than one third of the total number of sites.
The breakdown of sites by country shows that
there is considerable variation in the total area
protected. Figures appear relatively high in relation
to land areas, but it should be remembered that
many sites are marine and coastal ones, and a
number of countries and territories, including the
Bahamas, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Netherlands
Antilles, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda,
include extensive marine areas in their boundaries.
There are an estimated 370 marine and
coastal sites in total, and they play a very important
role in the conservation of coastal biodiversity
resources for human use both locally and regionally
The number of strictly protected areas (no-take
zones) is estimated to be more than 25 in this
region. These include a number of sites, such as the
Soufriere Marine Management Area in St Lucia,
which have been highlighted for their positive
contribution to both conservation and to improved
livelihoods for fishers, by breaking the cycle of
overfishing. Among other sites there is consid-
erable variability in management effectiveness
(Appeldoorn & Lindeman, 20031.
Despite the progress, networks of protected
areas have developed unevenly and are incomplete
in many parts of the insular Caribbean (WCPA,
Caribbean: Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area), 2005
No Category (5%
VI 133%)
II K0%)
V 15%
111(1%)
IV (16%)
Caribbean: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
300
250
200
150
100
50
la lb
IV V VI category
195
The world's protected areas
M Spalding
SPAW PROTOCOL
The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean
Region (Cartagena Convention. 19831 is one of the only region-wide environmental treaties that protects
critical marine and coastal ecosystems, while promoting regional cooperation and sustainable
development.
in April 1990, Parties to the Cartagena Convention adopted 'the Protocol Concerning Specially
Protected Areas and Wildlife ISPAW Protocoll,' a regional agreement for biodiversity management and
conservation. This Protocol became international law in June 2000.
The governments of the Caribbean recognize SPAW as a significant vehicle to assist with implem-
entation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDl, and an important complementary tool to
implement the protected area national plans. Cooperative agreements exist with other global initiatives
related to and collaborating with SPAW including the Ramsar Convention and the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission HOC). Further collaboration exists with the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species ICITESl, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
iBonn Convention), the International Coral Reef Initiative HCRI). and ICRI's Global Coral Reef Monitoring
Network. The mam objectives of SPAW are as follows:
a Safeguard sensitive habitats. Protect, preserve, and sustainably manage critical ecosystems such
as coral reefs and mangroves, and promote their value to ecological health and economic well-
being.
Q Protect endangered and critical species. Undertake conservation measures to protect threatened
and endangered species of plants and animals, as well as measures to prevent species from
becoming threatened or endangered, and to ensure recovery and restoration.
□ Provide support to the Caribbean Environmental Programme ICEPI member governments in the
following areas:
promotion of best practices and training for sustainable tourism within the public and private
sectors;
monitoring and management of coral reef ecosystems;
establishing a regional network of marine protected areas and an accompanying database to
assist these areas with information sharing and problem solving;
strengthening of protected areas through technical assistance, training, capacity building, and
revenue generation;
developing guidelines and recovery plans for species conservation;
linking to other protocols of the Cartagena Convention;
education and public awareness on species and ecosystems conservation and sustainable
management.
(Modified from SPAWBrochurel
196
Areas of the Caribbean protected (by country), 2005
Caribbean
Country/territories
AnquiLla
Land area Ikm^)
90
Total protected area Ikm^l
<1
Total number of sites
8
Antigua and Barbuda
UU^
66
Aruba
190
3
4
Batiamas
13 880
2 832
45
Barbados
430
3
7
Bermuda
50
154
132
Cayman Islands
260
241
48
Cuba
110 860
35 192
70
Dominica
750
204
7
Dominican Republic
^8 730
20 451
62
Grenada
340
7
2
Guadeloupe
1 710
456
22
Haiti
27 750
74
9
Jamaica
10 990
3 909
168
Martinique
1 100
774
25
Montserrat
100
11
18
Netherlands Antilles
800
144
15
Puerto Rico
8 950
2 187
58
Saint Kills and Nevis
270
26
2
Saint Lucia
620
104
52
Saint Vincent and the Grenad
ines 390
83
28
Trinidad and Tobaqo
5 130
322
86
Turks and Caicos Islands
430
717
34
Virgin Islands IBntish)
150
52
35
Virgin Islands lUSI
340
183
17
20031. Only 30 percent of the nnarine protected
areas in the region are considered to be adequately
managed (PNUMA, 2000). Ongoing assessments of
biodiversity and its protection are producing a more
detailed vision of the creation and efficient
management of protected areas, individually or as
national systems, as tools to preserve the
interrelated suite of biodiversity values in the
region. However, national and regional strategies
developed to date for protected areas have not been
entirely successful IWCPA, 2003).
International efforts
Certain of the region's characteristics, such as its
consisting of small nations with high connectivity,
mean that the Caribbean requires the joint
cooperation of all its nations, territories, and other
regional jurisdictions to achieve integrated
biodiversity management. Despite this, partici-
pation in some of the major global agreements for
the establishment of protected areas has been
relatively poor across the Caribbean. The larger
countries, notably Cuba, and also several of the
smaller territories of France, the UK, the Nether-
lands, and the USA, are more actively involved, but
many of the smaller independent nations are not.
This may reflect some of the difficulties and costs of
working at the global level for small, low-income
countries rather than pointing to any lack of
interest. For this reason regional cooperation may
be more important in the Caribbean than for many
other regions.
In 1990 the Caribbean states adopted the
Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAVi/)
Protocol as one important measure for
collaborative biodiversity protection (see box). This
protocol has become the main cooperation
mechanism for many aspects of conservation in the
region, with a key leadership role.
Other regional groupings include a number
of intergovernmental organizations such as the
Association of Caribbean States lACS), the Carib-
bean Community ICARICOM), the Caribbean
Forum (CARIFORUMl, and the Organization of
Eastern Caribbean States (DECS). There are a
number of important regional non-governmental
197
The world's protected areas
Caribbean: InternationaUy protected areas, 2005
Country/territories No. of
sites
Biosphere resenes
Cuba 6
World Heritage sites
Protected
area Ikm^l
13 837
Dominican Republic
1
i767
Guadeloupe
1
697
Puerto Rico
2
A]
US Virgin Islands
1
61
TOTAL
11
19 539
Ramsar sites
Antigua and Barbuda
1
36
Aruba 1 1
Batiamas
1
326
Barbados
1
Bermuda
7
Cayman Islands 1 1
Cuba
6
11 88^
Dominican Republic
1
200
Jamaica
2
132
Netherlands Antilles
5
19
St Lucia
2
1
Trinidad and Tobaqo
3
159
Turks and Caicos Islands
1
586
TOTAL
32
13 346
Cuba
2
1 038
Dominica
1
69
St Lucia
1
29
TOTAL
A
1 136
Blue Mountains, Jamaica
organizations including the Caribbean Con-
servation Association ICCAI, the Island Resources
Foundation |IRF|, and the Caribbean Natural
Resources Institute ICANARI). External inter-
national conservation organizations are also
increasingly active in the Caribbean, including The
Nature Conservancy (TNCI, the Ocean Con-
servancy, WWF, Conservation International (Cil,
and Environmental Defense |ED|.
One important regional project is the
Caribbean Regional Environment Programme
ICREPI being implemented by CARIFORUM. A
major component of this project are the amenity
areas demonstration activities, which focus on
existing or proposed protected areas that provide
benefits to local communities. CREP is undertaking
ten demonstration activities in ten insular
Caribbean countries during a 30-month period
which started in July 2003.
UNEP-CEP, the Caribbean Environment
Programme, is jointly operated as a UNEP Regional
Seas Programme and the implementing mech-
anism for the Cartagena Convention. The SPAW
program is coordinated by a Regional Co-ordinating
Unit IRCUl in Jamaica.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In October 2002 a WCPA Caribbean Regional
Planning in Nassau, Bahamas, considered how it
might take protected area issues forward in the
region, providing tangible benefits for members,
and enhancing the development of protected areas.
Critical among the conclusions were the develop-
ment of a strategic program which would link
regional protected areas in general and marine
protected areas in particular. It was seen as
especially critical to:
□ work toward the development of a
comprehensive network of protected areas
with full ecological representation;
Q use existing policy targets as well as existing
regional alliances (such as, but not limited
to, the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, SPAW, and CARICOMj;
u elevate the Caribbean region in global
conservation policy decision making;
J build short-term deliverables tor early
success on which expanded, long-term work
could then be founded.
198
Central America
Central America
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
Contributor: J. C. Godoy Herrera
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The seven countries of Central America make up
one of the smaller World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) regions, covering a
combined territorial area of 521 600 km^. Within
this area they are home to 8 percent of the Vi^orld's
known plant species and an extraordinary diversity
of landscapes and habitats. This region forms the
land bridge connecting the Americas, but also
stands as a barrier between the Caribbean Sea
and the Pacific Ocean.
The land area has largely been formed by the
subduction of the Cocos and Nazca tectonic plates
beneath the Caribbean Plate. This process has
thrown up extensive areas of highlands close to
the Pacific coast, including a conspicuous volcanic
chain rising to more than 4 000 meters. The
mountain slopes are home to extensive areas of
rainforest with cloud forests on the higher areas.
There are typically narrow, dry lowlands along the
Pacific coast and the more extensive and humid
lowlands of the Caribbean. Mean precipitation
ranges are between 500 and 7 500 millimeters per
year. There are mangrove areas (more than
500 000 hectares] along both coasts and coral
reefs in the offshore waters. The latter are
extensive in the Caribbean waters, and the region
includes large numbers of coral islands,
particularly off Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, and
Panama. There are few islands close to the Pacific
coast, but the volcanic Isla del Coco National Park
and World Heritage site is an important exception.
Almost the entire region has been included in
the Conservation International Mesoamerican hot-
spot, which also extends far into Mexico. There are
an estimated 15 000-17 000 plant species (others
estimate 20 0001 and rates of endemism have been
estimated at about 19 percent. Eight separate
centers of plant endemism have been described.
Six important ecoregions have been singled out in
Central America (WWF Global 200 ecoregions],
including the Mesoamerican pine-oak forests,
Talamancan-lsthmian Pacific forests, and the
Choco-Darien moist forests extending from eastern
Panama into Colombia. The marine waters include
parts of the Southern Caribbean ecoregion, the
Mesoamerican reef, and the Panama Bight.
Central America also possesses a rich array
of animal species, with elements from North and
South America as well as many endemics. Birdlife
International has identified some eight endemic
bird areas in the region. Guatemala has some 250
mammal species, and 929 bird species have been
described from Panama.
The region is one that is exposed to
considerable natural threats - hurricanes, earth-
quakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding, and even
localized drought have all ravaged parts of the
region in recent times. Human pressures come on
top of these natural problems, and often greatly
exacerbate their impact.
The combined population of 38 million is
heavily centered in the central volcanic chain and
along the Pacific coast. Population growth rates are
high, and industrial development is growing in the
areas of highest population density, and along
coasts. More than 70 percent of the region's sewage
remains untreated, while solid waste is a problem
in many areas. Agriculture is critical to the region,
including the production of export crops such as
199
The world's protected areas
150 r—
120 —
90 —
60 —
30 —
I Cumulative area of sites with l<nown establishment date (km^)
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm'I
" 1945 '50
'55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
Central America: Growth of protected areas network, 1945-2005
coffee, cocoa, sugar, and bananas. Unfortunately,
this agriculture, particularly for export markets, is
linked to high levels of agrichemical use, further
adding to pollution problems.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The date of the first human arrivals in Central
America is still disputed, although it seems likely
that populations were widespread by 8 000-9 000
BC. Unlike the Caribbean islands, many indigenous
peoples of Central America still remain, and some
continue to practice traditional lifestyles, with
simple agriculture, hunting, and fishing. Such life-
styles for the most part remain highly sustainable,
and territorial ownership and rights have been
given back to these people. These lands are often
listed as part of the protected areas coverage.
Protected areas came to Central America very
slowly. The oldest site is Barro Colorado Island in
Panama which was first established as a biological
Central America: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1945-2005
600 r—
500
■ Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
■ Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered Into WDPA
400 —
2 300
200
100
1945 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
200
Central America
Bo L Chnstiensen/UNEP
Cloud forest, Costa Rica.
201
The world's protected areas
■■ZU'J^
Source: UNEP-WCMC
202
Central America
reserve in 1923. Belize established a more syste-
matic approach of Crown reserves and forest
reserves, beginning with the declaration of Half
Iv'loon Cay Crown Reserve in 1928. Panama gave
recognition and partial autonomy to the Kuna
people and their land (the Kuna Yala Indigenous
Commarc) In 1938. In 1955 Guatemala declared ten
national parks and the protected area systems In
most countries began after this date. In 1964 there
were still fewer than 100 protected areas in Central
America but, despite this late start, the region has
become one of the most extensively protected In
the world.
Forest clearance for timber or agricultural
development has been very high since the 1960s
and 1970s, although rates of loss are a little lower
today 12 500-3 000 km^ per year for the region]. In
many areas the only natural forests remaining are
those within protected areas, but the protected
areas themselves are also subject to considerable
pressures. These include problems of poor site
demarcation and disputes over land ownership.
Pressures for development within protected areas
come from sectors ranging from tourism to
mineral extraction. Illegal forestry, clearance,
and settlement by small-scale farmers, drug
cultivation, and illegal hunting and fishing are all
problems, and, as the Intervening land areas are
converted to other uses, habitat fragmentation Is a
growing problem.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
In total there are some 783 protected areas across
Central America, covering a total of 157 933 km^;
103 of these sites are marine or coastal. Terrestrial
sites, however, predominate, and cover in total
more than 30 percent of the land area, making this
the most extensive terrestrial protected areas
network of any WCPA region.
Less than one third of sites fall into the stricter
lUCN Protected Area Management Categories ll-llll,
with the remainder having some degree of multiple
use. A very large proportion of sites are of
unassigned lUCN management category, and these
include a number of sites which may have relatively
low levels of protection such as biological corridors
and buffer zones.
Looking at Individual countries. El Salvador
stands out for its low levels of protection, although
there are a large number of sites In this country
which are currently being considered for protection.
Costa Rica has the largest number of protected
areas, although for Its size Belize has better
protection. The high figures for Belize Include a
number of sizable marine protected areas.
In terms of ecosystem cover, well represented
ecoregions include Belize Wetlands iBelize);
Panama Humid Forests (Costa Rica, Panama); the
Central American Pacific dry forest (Nicaragua,
Costa Rica); the pine forests of La Mosqulta
(Honduras, Nicaragua); the mangroves of Golfo de
Fonseca (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua] and
the Yucatan (Belize, Guatemala); and the Southern
Reefs (Costa Rica, Panama). Less well represented
ecoregions include: the Sierra Madre Humid Forest
(Guatemala and El Salvador); the high forests of
Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua); the Nicoya Seasonal Humid
Forest (Costa Rica); the Nenton dry mountain
(Guatemala); the Panama dry forest (Panama);
the pine forest Islas de la Bahia (Honduras); the
Peten savannas (Guatemala); the Cuchumatanes
Paramo (Guatemala); and the Valley of Motagua
(Guatemala).
Administrative regimes vary considerably
between the countries. In Belize protected areas fall
under three different ministries: the Forestry
Department in the Ivllnistry of Natural Resources
and Environment; the Fisheries Department in the
[vlinistry of Fishing, Agriculture and Co-operatives;
and the Archaeology Department in the Ministry of
Tourism. Each one maintains its financial and
Areas of Central America protected (by country), 2005
Country
Belize
Land area (km^)
22 960
Total protected area (km^l
320
Total number of sites
106
Costa Rica
51 100
17 724
183
El Salvador
21040
280
77
Guatemala
108 890
35 941
163
Honduras
112 090
29 762
99
Nicaraqua
130 000
29 406
93
Panama
75 520
33 501
62
203
The world's protected areas
Central America: Protected areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUC
N category
Total
Total
sites
area (km^l
la
18
'I 125
lb
3
3A2
II
lOA
d0 028
III
i8
2 222
IV
225
13 247
V
5
1 2A8
VI
100
M 615
No category
280
52 106
Total
783
157 933
Central America; Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area), 2005
No Category 15%)
VI (33%)
II |A0%)
V(5%) ■ 111(1%)
IV 116%)
Central America: Number ot protected areas by
lUCN category, 2005
300
250
200
150
100
50 -
la lb
No
VI category
administrative independence and defines its own
policies. By contrast, in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, and Panama protected areas all fall
under the remit of a single ministry.
In both Guatemala and Honduras there is
some coordination of effort between the various
responsible agencies. Guatemala has a Protected
Areas National Council (CONAPl, which is made up
of government and academic representatives,
including the ministries responsible for protected
areas. In Honduras the Environment Natural Res-
ources Secretariat ISERNA] coordinates and
assesses policies related to the environment,
although implementation of protected areas falls
under both agriculture and forestry sectors.
A number of countries have also declared
protected areas at the subnational level, including
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. It is not
clear how well these have been recorded within the
WCPA; however their total contribution to protected
area statistics across the region is probably still
relatively small.
Other forms of protection
Private reserves have now been established in a
number of countries. In Costa Rica there are more
than 90 private reserves covering about 650 km^,
some 22 percent of which have some level of state
recognition. In Guatemala private reserves have
been recognized by protected areas legislation
since 1989: by 2003 more than 50 reserves were
recognized, covering 207 km^.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOsl are
important in coordinating and supporting the
development of protected areas, including the
Voluntary Reserve Net in Costa Rica and the Private
Reserve Association in Guatemala. In Belize there
is only one private reserve, although this site covers
some 926 km^.
International approaches
Considering the relatively small size of the region, a
large number of sites have been designated under
international agreements. The largest are two
biosphere reserves, the 22 000 km^ Bosawas
Biosphere Reserve in northern Nicaragua, dom-
inated by lowland forests, and the 21 000 km^ Ivjaya
Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala. The latter site
includes the Tikal National Park, a mixed
World Heritage site, and the Natural Park Laguna
del Tigre, a Ramsar site.
In addition to these global efforts, there is
204
Central America
considerable coordination of protected area
activities within the region, particularly since the
establishment of the Convention for the Conserv-
ation of the Biodiversity and the Protection of Wild-
erness Areas in Central America (Managua, 19921.
This convention requires, inter alia, that:
Q Each country should develop conservation
strategies... that should include, as a
priority, the creation and management of
protected areas (Article 141.
Q Efforts should be made to ensure repres-
entative samples of the regional ecosystems
are protected (Article17l.
Q Particular areas are singled out for att-
ention, including: Resen/a de la Biosfera
Maya; Reserva de la Biosfera Fraternidad
c Trifinio; Golfo de Honduras; Golfo de
Fonseca; Reserva Rio Coco o Solidaridad;
Cayos Misl^itos; Sistema internacional de
Areas Protegidas para la Paz; Reserva Bahia
Salinas; Reserva de la Biosfera La Amistad;
Reserva del Sixaola; Region del Darien
(ArticlelS).
QThe Central American Commission on
Environment and Development (CCADI is
responsible for ensuring the development
and implementation of the Action Plan 1 989-
2000 for the creation and strengthening of a
Central American Protected Areas System
ISICAP) (Article 201.
Q Associated to the CCAD it establishes a
Central American Council of Protected
Areas (CCPAl, to work with the WCPA, to
help coordinate regional efforts and ensure
that SICAP becomes an effective Meso-
american Biological Corridor (Article 211.
In 1997, during the Presidents' Summit in Panama,
a conceptual plan for the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor (CBMl was adopted. This provides "A
system for territorial planning, made up of natural
areas. ..nucleus areas, buffer zones, multiple use
areas and connecting areas that together provide
environmental goods and services to the Central
American society and the wider world." The
CBM thus offers a strategic program to support a
better balance between local socioeconomic
needs, development, and the maintenance of
natural resources.
Transboundary initiatives have also grown
considerably since 1974, notably with the Trifinio
or La Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve between
Central America: Internationally protected areas,
2005
Country
No. of
Protected
sites
area (km^l
Biosphere reserves
Costa Rica
2
7 290
Guatemala
2
23 496
Honduras
1
8 000
Nicaragua
2
35 744
Panama
2
15 149
TOTAL
9
89 678
Ramsar sites
Belize
1
167
Costa Rica
11
5 053
El Salvador
1
16
Guatemala
/.
5 027
Honduras
5
1 797
Nicaragua
8
4 055
Panama
i,
1 599
TOTAL
34
17714
World Heritage sites
Belize
1
963
Costa Rica'
3
8 433
Guatemala
1
576
Honduras
1
5 000
Panama'
2
8 040
TOTAL
7
23 012
1 The Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves/La
Amistad National Park is a transboundary World
Heritage site between Costa Rica and Panama and
hence the total figure for number of sites is lower than
the sum of all country totals.
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador; La Amistad
Reserve between Costa Rica and Panama; and the
Protected Areas System for Peace (SIAPAZI,
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Other
transboundary areas being considered for more
active development include Rio Coco/Bosawas/
Rio Platano/Tawanka, between Honduras and
Nicaragua; the Area Chiquibul/Montanas Mayas
between Guatemala and Belize; and the initiative to
create a Protected Areas System in Gran Peten
(SIAPI, between Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize
(Calakmul, Mirador/Rio Azul, y Rio Bravo/Lamanail.
Another form of international collaboration
comes from the support provided by international
agencies. During the 1990s it was estimated
that at least 33 international organizations (notably
205
The world's protected areas
SGR Warner/UNEP
Rio Chagres, Panama
from Germany, the EU, Canada, the USA, Spam, the
Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries]
contributed technical and financial assistance to
approximately 70 projects that benefited roughly
145 protected areas. Such support has encouraged
national, binational, and multinational projects
through the region.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Despite the large extent of protected areas, a
number of important or unique ecosystems are not
adequately covered. Priorities for improved pro-
tection include Los Morrales de Pasaquina in
Chalatenango, El Salvador; the Morazan region in
the semi-arid zone and Los Cuchumatanes cold
high plateau in Guatemala; the pine forests in
Guanaja Island in Honduras; the Maya Mountains in
the south of Belize; and the Volcanic Cordillera of
Guanacaste or Tilaran in Costa Rica. Coastal wet-
lands are another priority for protection.
In the most densely populated areas, typically
along the Pacific coast and the medium-to-high
plains, protected areas are often small and are also
more threatened by various human pressures. In
these areas there is an urgent need to protect
remaining vegetation relicts, create corridors, and
restore degraded areas.
Many sites are still not clearly demarcated in
the field and there may still be disputes over land
ownership and registration. Only about one third
of sites have even a minimal institutional or
staffing presence on the ground and, even among
these, management may be poor. There are a
growing number of initiatives to promote co-
administration and management as a means of
bringing in further support and utilizing the
growing interest of civil society in protected areas.
Many ground staff are already paid by NGOs or
other partners rather than by central govern-
mental sources.
Priorities for the future
Protected areas conservation in Central America
has improved considerably during the last decade.
Critical issues facing the future of protected areas
management are those of funding, sustainable
management, local and stakeholder involvement,
and international cooperation.
206
Central America
From a management perspective the states
can no longer afford sole responsibility for
protected areas. At the same time adjacent
communities are increasingly interested in
becoming involved. For both of these reasons it
will be important to broaden stakeholder
participation and encourage co-management.
While states may need to remain the final arbiters
of protected areas issues, decentralization of
technical and administrative tasks to local
stakeholders (including indigenous peoples] and
local governments should reduce costs and
improve efficiency. There may also be calls to hand
over management of certain sites to private non-
profit initiatives, vi'hich may be able to offer
independent funding and other resources to
ensure good management.
There is a considerable need to improve the
capacity for management on the ground. This
should include better pay and living conditions for
staff, including training programs and even
exchanges with other protected areas to encourage
the transfer of ideas. Linked to such improvements
will be the development of greater professionalism
within the workforce, which is currently dominated
by young, temporary personnel, no doubt in part
due to poor funding and a lack of secure or tenured
management positions. Many sites also need
transport and telecommunications equipment to
improve administration efficiency.
Park boundaries and legal systems also need
improvement. Clearer demarcation of boundaries
is required, and in many cases funds and admin-
istrative support are needed to buy, or
compensate, individuals whose land falls within
sites. Communication between administrative
agencies must be improved, and the level of
penalties must be raised to reduce levels of
infringement within protected areas. Greater
support at the levels of highest political authority
is needed to ensure the stability and security of
protected areas management.
A broad array of efforts will be needed to
improve funding. Large-scale international support
may be required for land purchase and the
development of large new sites. International
partners may also help in more general manage-
ment costs. It will be important to support conserv-
ation in private lands, including the possibility of
subsidies, tax breaks, or payment for environmental
services on these lands. Protected areas balance
sheets must be moved away from simply paying
salaries (currently 90-97 percent of states' budgets)
to a more balanced spending on other resources,
outreach, and training. More innovative funding,
including entrance tees, tourism, or other con-
cessions, permitted sustainable uses, and handi-
crafts need to be developed.
Additionally, technical studies which provide
proper economic valuations of goods and services
provided by protected areas, including water pro-
duction, carbon fixation, and recreational values,
will help to convince national agencies of the need
for adequate funding for protected areas. As tour-
ism grows across the region such activities must be
developed in harmony with the environment, while
mechanisms must be found to ensure that a share
of the benefits accrued from tourism is returned to
offset protected areas management costs.
It is necessary to build capacity for monitoring
and assessing status and change in protected
areas, in order to direct management. Linked to this
IS a need for biological inventories for each
protected area. There is also a need to be able to
further adjust and refine the national systems of
protected areas. In particular it may be necessary to
ensure full ecosystem representation and support
projects that build connectivity between sites,
perhaps establishing minimum targets of
protection for all ecoregions and supporting the
development of biological corridors.
Outreach and education to the wider society
will help build support for protected areas, and
increase the benefits these areas provide, while
engendering greater environmental responsibility.
Visitor facilities should be constructed in the more
accessible areas, and environmental education in
civil society should be broadened.
Regional collaboration is already good in
Central America, and should continue - there are
considerable economies of scale from such
collaboration, enabling the sharing of planning,
training, management, and technical assistance.
The region would benefit from information
exchange as a form of capacity building between
sites and countries.
Global climate change is likely to affect many
Central American protected areas, although
changes may not be evident for some years. The
region must be aware of these threats, particularly
in mountain and cloud-forest ecosystems, and in
coastal ecosystems (river deltas, brackish waters,
or small islands, coral reefs]. Possible manage-
ment interventions must be considered.
207
The world's protected areas
Brazil
Contributors: A. B. Rytands. M. T. da Fonseca, R. a Machado, L P. de S. Pinto, R. B. Cavatcanti
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world,
occupying more than half of South America, with a
land area of 8 547 400 km^. The Amazon Basin,
bounded by the ancient crystalline shields of
Guyana (in the north! and Brazil lin the south], and
the Andes to the west, occupies slightly more than
half the country. The tropical forests there, along
with the Atlantic coast forests (including Araucaria
pine forests], and further forest areas inland in the
south and southeast, cover some 3.6 million km^.
The natural vegetation of the central plateau
of Brazil is sclerophytic savanna and savanna forest
(the Cerradol, and to the west, on the borders with
Bolivia and Paraguay, is the enormous floodplain of
the Rio Paraguay, the so-called Pantanal. The
northeast of Brazil is characterized by tropical
xerophytic vegetation and deciduous thorn scrub
(the Caatinga], much of it being secondary vege-
tation, formed over former humid and dry forest
areas that existed in pre-Columbian times. Both the
Atlantic forest and the Cerrado rank as biodiversity
hotspots: both have extraordinary levels of diversity
and endemism, and both have been devastated by
human activities. The Atlantic forest is today
reduced to about 7 percent of its original extent of
1.2 to 1.6 million km^. Subtropical grasslands (the
Campos Sulinos) predominate in the far south.
The Brazilian coastline extends for 7 491 km,
characterized by restinga (scrub and forest on
sandy soils] and globally significant estuaries,
mudflats, and mangroves. Cliffs and rocky shores
are found, especially in the south, associated with
the southern hills, the Serra do Mar Oceanic
islands include the Archipelago of Fernando de
Noronha and the Island of Trindade; important reef
complexes of the western Atlantic include those of
the Atol das Rocas and Abrolhos.
Mountain ranges are found in the northern
Amazon on the frontiers of Venezuela and Guyana
(Serras Pacaraima and Parima], which include
sandstone tepuis such as Monte Roraima and Pico
da Neblina, and the Serra Tumucumaque on the
border with the Guyanas. Further mountains are
widespread in southeast Brazil - the Serra do
Espinhaco, Serra do Mar, Serra da Mantiqueira, and
Serra Geral. The major freshwater ecosystems are
rivers, with extraordinary diversity in terms of
their structure, chemistry, and biodiversity. These
include the gigantic black-water, white-water, and
clear-water rivers of the Amazon Basin, and the
Rios Sao Francisco, Paraguay, Parana, and Doce in
the south.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The legal basis for national parks was established
under the 1934 Forest Code, and the first site was
established in Itatiaia in 1937. Two more were
established in 1939, a further three in 1959, and
eight in 1961, although detailed regulations for this
protected area category were published only in
1 979. The category of biological reserve was created
in the 1 965 revision of the Forest Code, but the first
site, Poco das Antas in Rio de Janeiro, was created
only in 1974. National parks and biological reserves
were the responsibility of the Forest Service of the
Ministry of Agriculture until 1967, when this became
the charge of the Department of National Parks and
Equivalent Reserves of the Brazilian Forestry
Development Institute (IBDF].
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, national
and international attention was drawn to the
Brazilian Amazon with the construction of the
Trans-amazonica highway, and the creation of the
"Altamira Polygon": 60 000 km^ were placed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institute for
Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRAI, while
key components of the National Integration
Programme (PIN] were established by decree in
1 970. Plans for the widespread development of the
Amazon were based on "development poles," the
■Polamazonia" program (under the Superint-
endency for the Development of Amazonia -
SUDAM, established in 1974]. The Amazonia
National Park was created in 1974 within the
Tapajos Agricultural Pole, but the IBDF's response
208
Brazil
M Wendler/UNEP
Ocelot [Leopardus pardatis], Brazil.
209
The world's protected areas
300 600 MOkm
100'W 9G°W
Source: UNEP-WCMC
SOW MLT 40°W
30°W 20°W
210
Brazil
was to draw up a similarly ambitious proposal in
1976 for a system of protected areas using biogeo-
graphic principles: representation of phytogeo-
graphic regions and vegetation types; and focusing
on Pleistocene refuges - forests identified by tiigh
endemism believed to have resulted from their
persistence through drier climates during the last
major ice age around 18 000 years ago. Until 1979,
there were only two protected areas in the
Brazilian Amazon, but a further seven national
parks 169 12U km^j and six biological reserves
(22 398 km^l were decreed for the region in the
following ten years. Nine of these fell within nine of
the 25 Brazilian Amazonian priority areas of IBDF's
1976 proposal.
Ten forest reserves were created in the
Amazon by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1911 and
1961, but this category was not given legitimacy in
the 1965 Forest Code, which instead recognized the
national forest and equivalent categories at the
state level. The original forest reserves have been
abandoned, settled, or converted into biological
reserves or indigenous reserves. The first national
forest was Araripe-Apodi, Ceara, created in 19^6.
Caxuiana, Para, was decreed in 1961 and a further
61 national forests have been created since then.
In 1981, the National Environment Policy created
the category of environmental protection area,
roughly equivalent to a biosphere reserve, while
the category of "area of particular ecological
interest" was created in 1984.
In 1973, the government created the Special
Environmental Secretariat ISEMAl within the
Ministry of the Interior In 1981, SEMA set up a
program for ecological stations to protect repres-
entative samples of Brazilian ecosystems, while
promoting ecological research and environmental
education. Twenty-five ecological stations and
reserves 17 579 km^l were created from 1981 to
1989. In 1989, IBDF and SEMA were combined to
form the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and
Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMAl, now within
the Ministry of the Environment.
Provision for private reserves was first
established in the 1965 Forest Code through the
little-used category of the private fauna and flora
reserve. The concept and regulations were revised
by IBAMA in 1990 and it was replaced by the private
natural heritage reserve (RPPN), a more robust
legal mechanism for a landowner to protect, in per-
petuity, forests, watersheds, and areas of natural
beauty, with the additional incentive of exemption
from land tax.
Extractive reserves were first established in
1 987, not as protected areas, but as an instrument
for agrarian reform, attending particularly to the
needs of rubber tapper communities suffering
encroachment and the destruction of their forests
by cattle ranchers in the southwest Amazon. In
1989, extractive reserves were included in the
National Environment Programme (PNMA) and
placed under the responsibility of IBAMA, and
Brazil: Growth of protected areas network, 1900-2005
1200
1 000
800
E &00
400
200
■ Cumulative area of sites with l<nown establishment date Ikm^l
■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
~ dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm')
111
1900 '05 '10 '15 '20 75 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 55 '60 65 '70 75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
211
The world's protected areas
1000 |—
800
600
wo
200
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
±1
1900 05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05
Brazil: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1900-2005
were regulated as part of the protected areas
system in 1990.
A revision of the protected areas system was
proposed as part of the National Environment
Programme, begun in 1 987 in collaboration with the
United Nations Environment Programme lUNEP). In
1988, the Brasilia-based non-governmental organ-
ization (NGOl, Fundacao Pro-Natureza IFunatural
was given the task of drawing up a consolidated
national protected areas system for Brazil ISistema
Nacional de Unidades de Conservacao da Natureza
- SNUCl, and after more than ten years of
discussion and deliberations it was officially
established in July 2000. The system included the
private RPPN category as an official protected area.
A subsequent decree 12001 1 determined that IBAMA
should adjust the categories of protected areas
which do not comply with the definitions and
determinations of the new system.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)
contains information on 1 286 protected areas
across Brazil, covering a total area of 1 611 547 km^.
Only 88 sites have marine or coastal elements, and
the total marine area protected is less than
16 000km2. The protection of terrestrial areas
amounts to 15.3 percent of the total country, a little
higher than the global average, but actually the
lowest proportion of any of the American World
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl regions.
In terms of the levels of protection provided,
less than 17 percent falls into strict lUCN
Protected Area Management Categories ll-lll).
Over 61 percent of the total protected areas have
not been given an lUCN category
National parks 152, covering 166 324 km^) are
the largest strictly protected areas, allowing for
education, recreation, and scientific research. Their
equivalent at the state level is the state park 1130,
totaling 56 959 km^l. Biological reserves and
ecological stations (58 federal areas covering
70 970 km2, and 1 20 state areas covering 6 353 km^l
protect representative and threatened ecosystems,
and sometimes target particular species Ifor
example, the Ivlico-Leao Preto Ecological Station
was created specifically to protect the black lion
tamarinl. National forests and state forests are
generally large reserves for silviculture, sustainable
logging, protection of watersheds, research, and
recreation. Thirty-six of the 63 national forests are
in Amazonia, accounting for 172 820 km^ or 99
percent of the area given over to this category.
Extractive reserves focus on protecting areas
for sustainable resource use, both terrestrial and
marine Ifor example, Brazil nuts, copaiba oil, latex,
and palm fruits], under joint administration of
government and local communities, currently, there
are 30; 23 in Amazonia (96 percent of their total
area]. A further eight sites of various denominations
have been declared with similar objectives at the
state level (all in Amazonia, covering 43 567 km^l.
212
Brazil
Environmental protection areas (EPAsI restrict
human activities to a[[ovj the conservation of
natural resources and environmental quality for
local communities, using management plans and
zoning, including areas of strict protection for
wildlife. This mechanism has been vi^idely adopted
in Brazil, increasingly as a buffer for parl<s and
reserves. Areas of particular ecological interest
(ARIEsI are small (50 I<m2 or less] and provide
protective measures for notable natural phen-
omena, or wildlife populations and habitats in
areas where human populations are minimal (while
still allowing public use). Private natural heritage
reserves (more than 500, state and federal, covering
about i 500 km2) are important instruments to pro-
tect forest fragments, which now predominate in
the once continuous Atlantic forest. The majority
of still unprotected forest in this area is now in
private hands.
The national protected areas system (SNUC),
established in 2000, is administered by three
government institutions. The National Council for
the Environment (CONAMAl (a consultative and
deliberative organ of the National Environment
System - SISNAMA, linked directly to the
Presidency) monitors its implementation, which is
coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment
(MMAl. Within the MMA, the Directorate of
Ecosystems of IBAMA is responsible for the
creation and management of the federal protected
areas. Analogous secretariats and forestry
institutes are responsible for the equivalent areas
at the state and municipal levels.
Indigenous reserves, historically not listed
among protected areas, have been included in the
present analysis. The majority, in both area and
number, are located in Amazonia, and admin-
istered by the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI).
Some Ai] indigenous reserves, areas, and territ-
ories total 989 546 km2 (11.8 percent of Brazil's
land surface]. Of these 361 cover about 20 percent
of the Brazilian Amazon, and some are playing a
significant role in protecting the forest from
ongoing destruction and development, particularly
those in northern Mato Grosso and southern
Para. A remarkable example is the 100 000 km^
Kayapo Indigenous Reserve, intact but now
isolated - entirely surrounded by roads, cattle
ranches, and farms. A further 139 indigenous
areas are currently under evaluation.
The major threat to public protected areas is
unresolved ownership by the state of the lands they
Brazil: Protected areas network by lUCN category,
2005
lUCN category
Total
sites
182
Total
area Ikm^)
112 033
lb
11
179
160 677
III
5
704
IV
259
5 070
V
115
135 707
VI
70
212 548
No category
476
9 848 809
Total
1 286
1 611 547
Brazil: Protected areas network by lUCN category
(percentage of total area), 2005
la 17%)
No cat 161%
Brazil: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
500
600
300
200
100
la II
IV V VI category
213
The world's protected areas
Firewood gathering in degraded former Atlantic forest, Brazil.
encompass. Five national parks, two biological
reserves, the Ique Ecological Station, and 16
national forests in Amazonia overlap partly or
entirely witln indigenous land claims (totaling
close to 1 1 000 km2|. Problems of land title, lack of
infrastructure, management, guards, fiunting,
squatters, indigenous claims (three covering more
than 50 percent of the park), gold mining (erosion
and mercury pollution), highways, military occu-
pation, and immense mineral deposits are all
threats to the Pico da Neblina National Park.
Most of the Amazonian protected areas are
subject to diverse combinations of these threats.
The Gurupi Biological Reserve has lost more than
half of its forest due to logging. In the rest of
Brazil, well-established parks still have substantial
portions under private ownership owing to the state
not having paid the indemnities required for
stewardship. Examples include the Chapada dos
Veadeiros, Serra da Canastra, and Serra da Bocaina
national parks, and Una Biological Reserve. Other
medium- to long-term threats include efforts to
fragment or reduce the extent of the parks, for inst-
ance the operation of the 'Colono' road in Iguacu
National Park, presently closed by court order
Other systemic threats are fire and Invasive species.
Other forms of protection
Numerous consen/ation areas are maintained and
administered by a broad range of groups and
institutions. Examples include:
a Scientific and agricultural research
institutions - for example the Adolfo Ducke
and Walter Egler Forest Reserves admin-
istered by the National Institute for Amazon
Research (INPAI, Manaus; the Ecological
Reserve of the Brazilian Institute for
Geography and Statistics (IBGEj in Brasilia;
and the Santa Lucia Biological Station of
the Museu de Biologia Mello Leitao in Espirito
Santo.
Q Universities - the Tapacura Ecological
Station of the Federal Rural University of
Pernambuco.
J NGOs - examples include the Mata do
Sossego Biological Station of the Fundacao
Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte; the Fazenda Rio
Negro (Pantanall of Conservation Inter-
national do Brasil; and a network of wildlife
refuges maintained by Funatura, Brasilia.
Industries with governance over large areas of land,
such as those in the energy and mining sectors, and
pulp and paper with large timber plantations, also
2U
Brazil
maintain reserves where wildlife and the maint-
enance of ecosystem functions are given priority.
Examples are the Linhares Forest Reserve of the
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, and a number of
small reserves of the Aracruz Cellulose Company,
both in Espirito Santo,
The 1965 Forest Code defined areas of perm-
anent preservation to protect particularly sensitive
or important natural areas, such as vegetation
along rivers; lakes and areas of spring water; steep
slopes and the edges of raised plateaus; coastal
shrub \restinga] for the stabilization of dunes;
mangrove ecosystems; and forests above 1 800
meters. The National Environment Policy of 1981
determined that these areas, and localities used by
migratory birds protected by international
conventions, be turned into ecological reserves and
areas of particular ecological interest.
Another important legal instrument is that of
the 'legal reserve' (Law 7.803, July 18 19891 which
determines the preservation of the natural
vegetation of 80 percent of any rural property in
Amazonia, 35 percent in the Cerrado, and 20
percent in the Atlantic forest. A Provisional Measure
of the Presidency IMay 20001 defined the functions
of this legal reserve as essentially for the sustain-
able use of natural resources and biodiversity
conservation, and allowed for a compensatory
mechanism of creating a protected area of similar
ecological relevance and in the same hydrographic
basin, when all or part of the legal reserve of a
property has been, or needs to be, destroyed.
International sites
The Ramsar Convention was ratified by Brazil in
1993. Currently there are eight Ramsar sites,
totaling 6^ 341 km^. The largest of these sites, the
27 000 km2 Reentrancias Maranhenses, is coastal,
protecting mudflats, islands, and mangroves.
Others cover a broad range of habitats including the
alluvial floodplains of the Pantanal Matogrossense;
the 18 000km2 Baixada Maranhense Ramsar site
protecting flooded grassland, lagoons, mangroves,
and babassu palm forest; and the llOOOkm^
Mamiraua Ramsar Site protecting a significant area
of varzea Iwhite-water flooded forest). One site, the
coral reefs of the Parcel Manuel Luis off the coast of
Maranhao, is one of the only Ramsar sites to lie in
open ocean, with no intertidal waters or dry land.
Seven natural World Heritage sites are listed,
but a further 10 have been declared under cultural
criteria. As is often the case, sites designated under
Brazil: Internationally protected areas, 2005
Agreement
No. of
Protected
sites
area Ikm^)
Biosphere reserves
6
1 280 419
Ramsar sites
6A341
World Heritage sites
85 957
cultural criteria only may still hold important
natural resources, such as the Serra da Capivara
National Park, designated a cultural site in 1991
due to its archaeological significance, but which is
also an important natural site in the Caatinga.
Brazil is also host to five of the 10 largest
biosphere reserves in the world, which have been
established for all the major terrestrial biomes.
They cover about 1.25 million km^, or nearly 15
percent of the land surface of the country. These are
the 295 000 km^ Reserva da Biosfera da Mata
Atlantica; the 297 000 km2 Cerrado Iwith varied
savanna and forest ecosystems); the 252 000 km^
Pantanal; the 199 000 km^ Caatinga (deciduous
forest and desert scrub in the northeast of Brazil);
and the Central Amazon Corridor la range of
contiguous protected areas in the Amazon basin).
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Brazil is the megadiversity country of the world,
with global responsibility for three major wild-
erness areas: the large majority of the Amazon
(about 20 percent lost to date), the world's largest
wetland - the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, and the
Caatinga of the northeast. It also contains two bio-
diversity hotspots: the remains of the decimated
Atlantic forest, and the richest tropical savanna in
the world in terms of plant diversity and endemism
- the Cerrado. Protected areas are the key to
conserving what remains of these hotspots, and to
counterbalancing huge, ambitious infrastructure
development schemes such as the Avanca Brasil
program 12000-07) for Amazonia, which envisions
doubling the extent of paved roads in the region, the
construction of dams, waterways, ports, and rail-
ways to advance its occupation and development
over enormous areas. Deforestation in Amazonia
proceeds apace, with an average annual rate of loss
of 18 051 km2 since 1977. The Brazil Ministry of
Science and Technology has estimated that 23 750
km^ were deforested in 2002-2003 alone.
Key challenges include expanding the
protected areas system, essentially through
securing additional baseline information on the
215
The world's protected areas
The Amazon is home
to more than more than
100 000 invertebrate
species (top) and
perhaps as many as 30
million. (Center) Male
black caimans
[Melanosuchus niger\
can grow to 6 m.
Frequent rain and high
humidity have enabled
many frog species
(bottom! to live and
breed in the trees.
country's biodiversity, besides refining policies and
guidelines and improving tfie capacity of the
governmental institutions for their management
and protection. The future and integrity of many of
the protected areas are threatened. Improving
connectivity between protected areas, the chief aim
of the Corridors project (see below], will also be vital
for the viability and success of these areas over the
long term.
Five workshops, compiling data on biodiv-
ersity, socioeconomic variables, and land use,
were held during 1998-2000 to identify and
prioritize conservation areas in the major biomes
in Brazil (Brazil, MMA, 20021. Nine hundred areas
were identified as of priority for the conservation
of the country's biodiversity: 385 in the Brazilian
Amazon; 182 in the Atlantic forest and Campos
Sulinos; 16^ in the coastal and marine zones; 87
in the Cerrado and Pantanal; and 82 in the
Caatinga. The creation of orotected areas was the
most frequent recommendation for conservation
measures for these areas in all the regions,
except Amazonia where it came second after
sustainable resource use'. By 2002, 55 protected
areas had been created as a result of these
workshops, and the priority areas will be targets
for new areas over the coming years.
Two other major initiatives underway are the
Biological Corridors Project of the Pilot Programme
for the Protection of Brazilian Tropical Forests
PP-G7 (IBAI^A, Sociedade Civil Mamiraua, and
Conservation International do Brasil) and the
Amazon Region Protected Areas (ARPAI Prog-
ramme (MMA and WWF Brazil!. Both began in 1997
and are supported by the World Bank, and the latter
also by the Global Environment Facility. The
Corridors project idealized seven major corridors
[very large stretches of contiguous protected areas
of diverse categories): five in the Amazon and two in
the Atlantic forest. The rationale was to avoid the
creation of island' protected areas, doomed to lose
their species over the long term. The corridors were
placed strategically to maximize representation of
the biodiversity of the Atlantic forest and Amazonia.
Their initial design has been modified as a result of
the workshops mentioned above, and the project
has already resulted in some major advances in
consolidating the protected areas system.
The ARPA program was officially launched at
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg (2002), and aims to increase the area
of the Amazon rainforest under federal protection to
216
Brazil
500 000 km2 (12 percent), based on the repres- example, the national parks of Pico da Neblina
entation of 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by (22 000 km^l, Jau (22 720 km^l, the tvlountains of
WWF, besides support for the development of man- Tumucumaque (38 670 km^l, and the Mamiraua
agement plans and protective measures for some (112i0km2| and Amana (23 500 km^l State
existing areas, such as the Serra da Cutia and the Sustainable Development Reserves. The PP-G7
Ivjountains of Tumucumaque National Parks, and Corridors Project and ARPA are underpinning
the Cautario Extractive Reserve. the last chance to protect Brazil's natural
As can be seen from this brief report, over the biodiversity. Over the next 20 years, it will be the
last 30 years Brazil has considerably expanded its parks and reserves which will draw the map of the
parks system, with some of the largest tropical natural areas that will remain.
forest protected areas in the world, including, for
217
The world's protected areas
South America
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador,
French Guiana (France), Guyana, Paraguay,
Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
Contributors: C. Castano Uribe. C. Lacambra
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
South America, as defined by the World
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl, includes
all of the countries of continental South America
except Brazil. Although this definition is used here,
a number of issues deal with the entire continent,
including Brazil.
The continent of South America can be divided
into two quite distinct geological parts. The large
eastern areas consist of a series of ancient Ipre-
Cambrianl shield formations with higher ground,
separated by wide alluvial basins. The largest of
these is the Amazon Shield (in Brazil), with the
Guyana Shield to the north and the Plata Shield to
the south. The western part of the region is much
smaller, but dominated by the Andes Cordillera, a
vast mountain range that emerged 230 million
years ago as the result of the subduction of the
Pacific Plate beneath the South American Plate.
The Andes extend for 7 240 km from the sub-
Antarctic lands of southern Chile through seven
countries to Colombia and Venezuela (where the
chain turns eastwards!. They range from 200 to
400 km wide; many peaks are above 5 000 meters
and the highest, at 6 960 meters, is Aconcagua in
Argentina. Between the mountains are areas of high
plateaus (Altiplanol. The average altitude is
3 660 meters. There are numerous volcanoes and
the region is regularly impacted by earthquakes.
Many of the important rivers that run across
the subcontinent have their headwaters in the
Andes. The rivers running down the western slopes
into the Pacific Ocean tend to be more turbulent and
short. Rivers running eastwards traverse the
continent, feeding or receiving waters from other
rivers before they arrive at the Atlantic. Among
these are the Amazon, Rio Negro, Magdalena, and
some of the tributaries of the Parana.
The continent is bounded by the Pacific and
Atlantic Oceans and by the Caribbean Sea to the
north. The Pacific coastline is dominated by the cold
Humboldt Current, and by upwelling water close to
the coastline. Typically, these are nutrient-rich and
highly productive waters, but during the irregularly
timed El Nino years these upwellings are reduced
or absent; warmer waters predominate and
weather patterns across much of the region are
significantly altered.
The continent has a remarkably diverse and
complex mosaic of fauna and flora. Among the very
important and unique ecosystems found in the
region are the Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Colombian,
and Venezuelan Paramo (wetlands and wet
grasslands with distinctive species such as
frailejones, Espeletia sp.l 3 000 meters above sea
level; and the snow chains along the subcontinent
from Argentina to the Colombian Caribbean at
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. The tropical Andes
make up one of the most diverse ecosystems in the
world, ranging from forested foothills and humid
cloud forests to cold paramos, punas (cold, arid
areas above the treeline with low plant formations),
and glaciers sometimes within a very short
distance. Other important habitats include the
Colombian and Venezuelan plains and savannas;
the tepuis or rocky formations in the Formacion
Roraima on the Guyana Shield; the Brazilian,
Uruguayan, and Paraguayan Pantanal (probably the
218
South America
J Rores/UNEP
Patagonia, Argentina.
219
The world's protected areas
2 000
1500 —
E 1 000 —
500 —
I Cumulative area of sites witti l<nown establishment date (km^)
I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km'l
1907 '10 '15 20 25 '30 35 '40 45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05
South America: Growth of protected areas network, 1907-2005
world's largest wetland), and the vast dry Chaco
region with thorn forests and savanna, shared by
Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina. The Amazonian
forest comprises 5.5 million km^ shared by Brazil.
Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Due to its
vast area and productivity, this region plays an
important role in regulating the world's climate.
The South American coastline covers a broad
range of habitats. There are coral reefs, principally
in the Caribbean Sea, but also in scattered comm-
unities in Pacific waters. Mangroves are wide-
spread, botn in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic
waters and in the Pacific as far south as northern
Peru. Chilean and Peruvian waters provide one of
the most important fisheries worldwide. Some of
the most productive estuaries in the world are also
found in the region: La Plata River estuary in the
Atlantic and in the gulfs of Guayaquil and Fonseca in
the Pacific, among others, in addition to many
South America: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1907-2005
1200
1000
800
a 600
400
200
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
jj.
j_a
ll
il
1907 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
220
South America
coastal islands, notably in southern Chile and
Argentina, oceanic islands are found, including
Juan Fernandez and Easter Island/lsla de Pascua
Iboth Chllel, Galapagos lEcuador), as well as the
San Andres and Providencia Archipelago IColombial
in the Caribbean Sea.
Biological diversity in this region is almost
unparalleled. Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and
Peru are all considered megadiverse countries,
with among the highest levels of both diversity and
endemism of any nations. Most of the land surface,
and the adjacent waters, fall within priority
ecoregions as identified by WWF (the Global 2001.
There are some 37 endemic bird areas, many of
which overlap some 36 centers of plant diversity
These centers are particularly concentrated along
the Pacific coast and the Andes, where the
mountains have created a great array of isolated
and unique habitats and communities.
The human population of South America is a
mix of the indigenous peoples who were present
when the European explorers first arrived, along
with peoples of European (mainly Spanish, except
for Brazil! and African descent. As a consequence of
Spanish colonization, the main language in South
America is Spanish, while in Guyana, Suriname, and
French Guiana it is English, Dutch, and French
respectively. The indigenous peoples are still a
major part of the population, particularly in Peru
[iS percent), Bolivia (over 50 percent], and Ecuador
125 percent], and many still live traditional lifestyles,
often highly sustainable. Most countries achieved
independence during the 19th century - periods of
instability, totalitarian regimes, and civil disruption
have now largely given way to relative stability and
democracy across the region.
The value of some of these lands with reliable
water sources and fertile soils led to anthropogenic
pressures on some ecosystems even before
European colonization. In the last 50 years, the
human population has tripled to 181 million (2002
estimate, excluding Brazil]. Population density is
not homogeneous - there are extensive territories
with low populations, and some large cities such as
Santiago de Chile, Bogota, Buenos Aires, and Lima.
Most of the population is concentrated in the
Andean region or in coastal areas, adding particular
pressures to natural ecosystems in these places.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
It is very likely that indigenous peoples in many
parts of South America had developed a variety of
A Gellweiler/UNEP
systems to ensure natural resource protection,
which in some places may have included protection
of specific areas.
The first modern protected areas were
established in Argentina and Chile. In 1 903, a public
natural park was created in Argentinian Patagonia
(renamed Parque del Sur in 1922 and now part of
the Nahuel Huapi National Park]. In Chile the
Malleco Forest Reserve (now a national reserve]
was established in 1907. Many of the first national
parks were established in the 1920s and 1930s,
including the Vicente Perez Rosales National Park
in Argentina (1926], the Kaiteur National Park in
Blue-footed booby
{Suta nebouxiil,
Galapagos Islands
National Park, Ecuador.
221
The world's protected areas
South America; Protected areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area Ikm^)
la
55
12 478
lb
U
U754
II
220
505 116
III
72
74 349
IV
U3
185 554
V
96
126 204
VI
3U
586 300
No category
5';6
593 690
Total
1 450
2 098 445
South America: Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area), 2005
Guyana (1929), the Galapagos National Park
in Ecuador (1936), and the Sajama National Park in
Bolivia (1939). Many more protected areas, such as
the Sierra de la Macarena (originally a biological
reserve, now a national park) in Colombia, were
created after the Washington Convention in 1940,
which also led to an assessment and rearrange-
ment of management processes in the existing
protected areas.
Rapid increases in the protected area
systems in almost all countries began in the
1960s, and from this period onwards the
declaration of protected areas became a more
systematic process. Ivjost countries now have
technical and scientific criteria and guidelines
for protection that have evolved over time. Most
also have national-level organizations with tech-
nical expertise that monitor and administer
national parks and other protected areas.
No Category
(28%)
la 11%)
lb(1%l
II 12/^%)
-III(4%1
IV (9%)
VI (28%
V (6%)
South America: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
600
la lb II III IV V VI category
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
South America has the second highest proportion
of Its land area under protection of any V\/CPA
region. There are 1 450 protected areas, which
extend over 2 million square kilometers, covering
almost 23 percent of the land area. Despite this,
being such a diverse region, there are several
ecosystems that remain poorly protected or not
even included in this network.
Thirty-seven percent of protected areas in the
South America region in the World Database on
Protected Areas (WDPA) have no assigned
management category These include a broad
range of types of protection, including lands of
indigenous peoples, forest reserves, and buffer
zones around other protected areas. The region
also includes a large number of Category VI
protected areas, where a broad suite of
sustainable-use practices may be undertaken,
particularly where there are local communities,
such as indigenous groups, living within, or
adjacent to, sites. As a general rule, certain non-
extractive activities are permitted even in Category
l-lll sites, although these may be restricted to
research, restoration, education, recreation, eco-
tourism. or craftwork.
Marine areas are still very poorly protected
across the region. There are 1U marine protected
areas, covering a total of over 161 000 km^.
However, this latter figure is considerably skewed
by the Galapagos Marine Reserve, which makes up
133 000km2.
222
South America
Areas of South America protected (by country), 2005
Country/territory
Argentina
Land area (km^)
2 780 400
Total protected area Ikm^l
182 052
Total number of sites
328
Bolivia
1 098 580
230 509
50
Chile
755 630
143 565
103
Colombia
1 138 910
439 666
414
Ecuador
283 560
209 497
140
French Guiana
90 000
5 306
34
Guyana
214 970
4 860
3
Paraguay
406 750
23 664
37
Peru
1 285 220
179 257
61
Sunname
163 270
19812
15
Uruguay
176 220
725
29
Venezuela
912 050
659 530
236
Other forms of protection
In addition to protected areas declared at the
national level, almost all countries have other
systems of regional, non-governmental organiza-
tion (NGOI, and private protected areas. For the
most part, these sites are included in the statistics
provided above.
In Colombia there are 32 regional autonomous
corporations administering 122 natural protected
areas, v^hile municipalities add a further 79. There
are also 89 private reserves that cover 245 km^. The
provincial system of natural protected areas in
Argentina is very significant, covering some
120 000 km2. In Chile, the Private Protected Areas
Network IRAPPl, an NGO, coordinated by the
National Committee for the Defense of Fauna and
Flora ICODEFFl, protects 3 222 km^, including many
sites that do not have any official recognition. In
Peru the Natural Protected Area Law promotes the
existence of complementary systems through
regional conservation areas and municipal conserv-
ation areas. This law also recognizes private
reserves, although none is recorded.
International sites
All countries except Guyana have declared
protected areas under one or more of the major
international protected areas agreements.
The 37 biosphere reserves make up the
largest area of any of the international categories.
However, the figure is dominated entirely by the two
largest sites. The Galapagos Islands in Ecuador
(U8 000 km^l and the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve
in Colombia 1300 000 km2| are predominantly
marine areas with only a small portion of land.
The 71 Ramsar sites are spread across the
region, and include a number of coastal and marine
sites. The largest Ramsar sites are the Complejo de
Humedales del Abanico del Rio Pastaza in Peru
Imore than 38 000 km2| and the 32 000 km^
Pantanal Boliviano in Bolivia.
Apart from the global agreements, there are a
number of treaties, conventions, commissions, and
regional and international programs that have
active participation from Latin American countries.
One highly important regional development has
been that of the Latin American Network for
Technical Cooperation on National Parks, other
Protected Areas, Wild Fauna and Flora. This net-
work, created in 1983 as an initiative from the FAO
Regional Office and the UNEP Office for Latin
America and Caribbean, is made up of more than
1 000 public and private specialist institutions
relating to biodiversity conservation and protected
areas management. The network has been working
officially since 1985 as a way of complementing
traditional technical assistance by supporting
technical cooperation among developing nations. It
has had a number of important impacts: supporting
an increase in technical cooperation between
countries; the establishment of joint projects and
the exchange of knowledge and experience between
national specialists and institutions; and in
strengthening and modernizing national technical
capacities and training opportunities.
Further mechanisms under development
include the Iberoamerican Network (which
incorporates Spain and Portugal as additional
countries for international cooperation); and the
National Parks and Other Protected Areas
Foundation [FUPANAPI. The latter has established
links between former senior executives from
223
The world's protected areas
South America: Internationally protected areas,
2005
Country/territory
Biosphere reserves
Arqentina
No. of
sites
11
Protected
area (km^)
41 770
Bolivia
3
7 350
Chile
8
73 792
Colombia
5
333 323
Ecuador
3
173 751
Paraguay
2
77 723
Peru
3
32 684
Uruguay
1
2 000
Venezuela
1
82 662
TOTAL
37
825 055
Ramsar sites
Arqentina
U
35 829
Bolivia
8
65 181
Chile
9
1 592
Colombia
3
4 479
Ecuador
11
1 585
French Guiana
2
1 960
Paraguay
6
7 860
Peru
10
67 774
Suriname
1
120
Uruguay
2
4 249
Venezuela
5
2 636
TOTAL
71
193 265
World Heritage sites
Arqentina
U
11362
Bolivia
1
15 230
Colombia
1
540
Ecuador
2
145 384
Peru
k
21 799
Suriname
1
16 000
Venezuela
1
30 000
TOTAL
U
240 315
national protected area systems to channel their
experiences in support of Soutti American and
Central American protected areas.
Another important development has been
the Amazonian Protected Areas Sub-Network
(SURAPA). In a process developed between 1989
and 1998, this was one of the first regionally
coordinated activities supported by the Amazonian
Environment Special Commission (GEMMA) under
the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty (TCA) signed by
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru,
Suriname, and Venezuela. The project encouraged
development of regional criteria, parity, and
standardization for the establishment and
management of protected areas. It further
supported capacity building and training; the
formation of areas of excellence; publication of
technical support documentation; exchange of
staff and provision of scholarships between
countries, and the expansion of protected areas
cover and representativeness.
The region includes parts of three regional
seas, two of which have legally binding conventions;
the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and Coastal Zone of the South-East
Pacific (Lima Convention) and the Convention for
the Protection and Development of the Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region
(Cartagena Convention). Both conventions have
been signed by the relevant South American nations
adjoining the region and both provide a broad range
of provisions for coastal protection. Importantly,
both have specific protocols dealing with the
establishment of protected areas.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In a region where the spatial area of protection is
already high, many of the key requirements for the
future are aimed towards strengthening manage-
ment. Under a proposed action plan for the World
Parks Congress in 2003, ten key points were
outlined to give orientation and assistance to all
those institutions working on protected areas in
the region for the next ten years.
1: Construction of protected area systems
□ Design and implement national systems of
protected areas across a range of manage-
ment categories, or enforce the existing
ones; these should include sites that allow
sustainable use of resources and those that
restrict resource extraction. Management
objectives and selection criteria should be
clearly defined. Private areas should receive
special attention to ensure their long-term
future.
a Analyze the possibility of including comm-
unity conservation areas as a natural
protected area category of each country.
J Obtain financial, scientific, and technical
support to assess the biogeographic, eco-
system, and biome coverage in protected
area systems.
226
South America
2: Assessment of management effectiveness
Q Design and implement systems to assess
the management effectiveness of natural
protected areas orientated to improve
management of such areas.
Q Share experiences, prepare guidelines and
principles, and apply rapid and efficient
methodologies to assess natural protected
areas.
3: Institutional strengthening
□ Consolidate a political framework for
protected area systems.
Q Strengthen protected area institutions and the
technical, operative, and administrative capa-
bilities of employees.
□ Develop and publish concepts, tools, and
methods for designing and implementing
protected areas management plans.
a Establish strategic alliances between global,
regional, and national training and research
centers, and provide advice on protected areas
management.
Q Promote the establishment of regional centers
for protected areas personnel.
Q Address the needs of protected areas staff in
relation to their health and safety, quality of
life, salaries, accommodation, and opportuni-
ties for professional development.
a Encourage technical exchange between
countries to support training and the exchange
of ideas and techniques for protected area
management.
6: Encourage local participation in planning
and management
Q Enhance the decentralization of public entities
in charge of protected areas administration
and strengthen local organizations to
encourage their involvement,
Q Promote strategic alliances among protected
areas management agencies, local com-
munities, NGOs, government institutions, the
private sector, and corporate bodies.
Q Study the experiences of protected areas
co-management in the region, and establish a
database accessible to all stal<eholders.
5: Ensure financial sustainability for
protected areas
□ Produce and assess financial sustainability
experiences in the region's protected areas.
Establish strategic, solid, and permanent
alliances among protected areas, govern-
mental institutions, and the private sector
J Design and establish economic instruments to
enhance conservation and consolidation of
protected area systems. Design regional
strategies for sustainably financing protected
areas at the level of shared ecosystems or
pilot areas shared by a group of countries,
using international funding sources and
bilateral cooperation agencies.
6: Increase marine and coastal protected areas
J Propose, design, and adopt an ecological
classification system for South American
coastal and marine environments.
3 Develop and broadly disseminate concepts,
guidelines, and tools for the establishment of
marine and coastal protected areas at national
and regional levels.
J Establish representative national systems
of marine protected areas and develop
regional approaches that multiply benefits
in terms of biodiversity conservation and
resource productivity.
J Create a regional specialist group on coastal
and marine protected areas, to produce
guidelines and orientation on the subject.
J Revise existing legislation or develop a new
law that includes recommendations for man-
agement categories, establishment mecha-
nisms, zoning and management plans,
community participation, research regula-
tions, financial arrangements, allowed and
forbidden activities, sanctions and incentives,
conservation awareness and education.
7: Establish or strengthen national and regional
information systems
J Strengthen technical cooperation networl<s in
financial, operative, institutional, and
functional terms.
J Promote and develop a regional information
system on declared areas, that also provides a
forum for sharing information on priority
setting, professional contacts, new declared
areas, events, etc.
Q Design, develop, and implement national
information systems that allow the rapid
dissemination of information in useful
formats. National and international institu-
tions should coordinate this data sharing.
225
The world's protected areas
Henri Pittier National
Park, Venezuela.
8: Strengthen legislation and
effective implementation
Q Assess existing legislation in relation to
protected areas, seeking opportunities for
improvements and additions, or to use
existing measures more broadly, to address
international agreements, and to address
global change.
Q Revise internal legislation to ensure
effectiveness and efficiency, and to facilitate
access and utilization of economic resources,
and establish connections between protected
areas and financial plans at local and national
levels.
9: Develop economic and ecological valuation
methods for environmental goods and services
Q Design and implement, as a planning and
management tool, a regional system for the
economic valuation of protected areas' goods
and services.
10: Support control and vigilance in protected areas
J Organize, tram, and empow/er teams spec-
ialized in control and vigilance issues on
illegal settlement, hunting, logging,
archeological theft, pollution, illegal
fisheries, etc. Provide the means for
education and environmental interpretation
at local levels.
□ Promote the involvement of local
communities, governmental organizations,
and different social sectors in natural res-
ources protection, including training for
preventative action, ensuring awareness of
existing legislation.
□ Provide adequate mechanisms to supervise
and follow up permits, licenses, or authoriz-
ations granted to users of protected areas.
J Supply protected areas with the infrastructure
and technological resources needed for the
development of control and protection
activities within their boundaries.
226
Europe
Europe
Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands (Denmark),
Finland. France, Germany,
Gibraltar (United Kingdom), Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania. Luxembourg,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Serbia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard and Jan
Mayen Islands (Norway), Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, Vatican City State
Contributor: R. Crofts
227
The world's protected areas
30°W
20°W
10°W
20°E
30°E
20°W 0' 20'E
4'
Svalbard & Jan Mayen
Islands (NOR)
70°N
.300 600,15^0 k?!;
200 400
ALB Albania
AND Andorra
AUT Austria
BEL Belgium
BGR Bulgaria
BIH Bosnia & Herzegovina
CHE Switzerland
CZE Czech Republic
DEU Germany
DNK Denmark
ESP Spam
EST Estonia
FIN Finland
FRA France
GBR Umted Kmgdom of Great
Bntam & Northern Ireland
GRC Greece
HRV Croatia
HUN Hungary
IRL Ireland
ISL Iceland
FTA Italy
LIE Liechtenstein
LTU Lithuania
LUX Luxembourg
LVA Latvia
MCO Monaco
MKD Former Yugoslav Republic
ofMacedonia
MLT Malta
NLD Netherlands
NOR Norway
POL Poland
PRT Portugal
ROU Romania
SCO Serbia & Montenegro '-
SMR San Marmo
SVK Slovakia
SVN Slovenia
SWE Sweden
VAT VaUcan City State
(Holy See)
BLACK
SEA
Gibraltar (GBR)
Source: UNEP-WCMC
228
Europe
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAI
European region comprises 35 countries stretching
from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, and from the
northeast Atlantic to the Black Sea. Although
generally classified as temperate, the region
extends from dry scrubland to Arctic tundra. Marine
areas include the northern and central waters of the
Mediterranean Sea. the Baltic Sea. and the complex
of seas around the northeast Atlantic including the
Irish Sea. North Sea. Norwegian Sea. and Barents
Sea. Oceanic islands include Iceland, the Faroe
Islands (Denmark), and Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Islands iNorwayl in the North Atlantic, as well as
the Azores and Madeira [Portugal], and the Canary
Islands (Spain). The last lie in subtropical waters
just off the coast of southern Morocco.
Geologically the region divides into an ancient
(pre-Cambrian) shield in the north; Fennoscandia. a
wide, relatively simple plain of sedimentary strata
dominating the central and eastern areas; and a
topographically complex region in the western and
southern areas. The last includes a number of
mountain ranges, notably the Alps. Carpathians.
Balkans, and Pyrenees, all formed by tectonic
activities dating back to the Tertiary.
The Europe region is biogeographically diverse
as a result primarily of its geological history and
rock strata, and the degree of oceanic or
continental, and Arctic or Alpine, influences on its
climate. Various classifications of the major
biogeographic regions exist. These can be used as a
basis for selecting protected areas and ensuring
that there is adequate coverage in each of the
regions. The standard regions for Europe are:
boreal, humid mid-latitude, and Mediterranean.
These are rather too broad for identifying protected
areas, particularly as they ignore the Alpine and
extreme oceanic components. The European Union
(EU) has used a sixfold approach as the basis for the
implementation of the Natura 2000 protected area
network: boreal, continental. Atlantic. Alpine,
Macaronesia, and Mediterranean. A detailed natural
vegetation map has been compiled which can be
used to define habitats. Individual countries have
developed more detailed divisions to represent
the subtleties of biogeography, e.g. Norway and
Scotland. Overall, there is no systematic application
of a biogeographical framework for the selection of
protected areas, with the exception of the Natura
network, as each country has developed its own
approaches over a long period of time.
Despite millennia of human interactions with
the natural environment, there remain high levels of
biodiversity, particularly around the Mediterranean
basin. Some 12 500 vascular plants have been
described, about 28 percent of which are endemic.
Centers of diversity and endemism are particularly
concentrated in the mountain ranges and around
the Mediterranean coast - 25 centers of plant
diversity have been recognized, and nine important
ecoregions (WWF Global 200). Vertebrate endem-
ism tends to be much lower, however, and only one
endemic bird area has been recognized, around
Madeira and the Canary Islands.
With a long history of human settlement,
including 10 000 years of agriculture, there has
been continuous modification of natural habitats.
Many of the original habitats of Europe have been
lost or highly modified, and very little of the land
surface remains in a purely natural state. Species
have proved to be adaptable to changing habitats,
even developing niches in entirely man-made
habitats, and today many human-modified cultural
landscapes have a critical role in the maintenance
of Europe's biodiversity.
Despite this history, profound changes have
affected natural habitats, species, and cultural
landscapes in recent decades. Most significant have
been the growth of coastal resort complexes,
particularly along the shores of the Mediterranean
Sea; the rapid intensification of agriculture
supported by financial incentives provided for food
production; the development of transport infra-
structures to speed public and private transit over
long distances; the continuing high exploitation of
marine fish stocks; and the effect of armed conflict
in certain parts of the region.
Keswick, Lake District
National Park, United
Kingdom.
The world's protected areas
The single most significant change in the
distribution of population is the growth of major
urban areas through infilling within the urban
space, expansion on the periphery, and amalgam-
ation of settlements. The space for green areas has
been reduced with consequent diminution in
landscape quality and species niches.
Politically, the independence achieved by
many countries in eastern Europe and the desire of
many of them to join the European Union Inow
including 25 out of 35 countries in the region] will
have long-term significance for protected areas.
Under the EU Directives on the Protection of Wild
Birds 11979] and on the Conservation of Natural
Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora 11992], a
coherent European ecological network is being est-
ablished, known as Natura 2000. Its implementation
requires countries to update and strengthen their
nature conservation laws and implement monit-
oring of scheduled species and habitats.
There remains concern among the conser-
vation community, led particularly by the large
international charities such as Birdlife International
and WWF, that the distribution of protected areas
inadequately represents key habitats and species,
and that the gaps in the system should be filled.
These organizations have been instrumental in
pressing for the implementation of already agreed
systems, such as the Natura network. In addition to
these concerns, there are still many protected areas
that, in effect, exist only on paper, and measures to
make them effective for biological and landscape
diversity conservation are not being taken.
Perhaps of even greater significance is the
continuation of land uses which degrade the natural
environment and undermine its natural functioning.
Foremost amongst these pressures is the contin-
uation of intensive agriculture with very substantial
public funding under the EU Common Agricultural
Policy. It is too early to tell whether the reform
package agreed in mid-2003 will have the beneficial
effects on species, habitats, and landscapes which
have been claimed. In addition, commercial press-
ures are resulting in a reduction in the remaining
remnants of natural forests.
Political will to ensure that areas are protected
from development has strengthened in a number of
countries with the tightening of existing law or the
implementation of new law. The implementation of
the European Union birds and habitats directives
resulting in the Natura 2000 network, with strong
challenges on the inadequacy of some countries'
proposals, has been an important driver in a largely
positive direction. However, other EU policies and
financial support, especially for agriculture, for
roads and other infrastructure, for economic devel-
opment, and for fisheries, have resulted in a
reduction in biological and landscape diversity and
the fragmentation of habitats. There are clear
dangers of this pattern occurring in the countries
newly joined or about to join the EU.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
During most of the last millennium, national rulers
established protected areas to safeguard their
hunting grounds; particularly significant were the
deer and other hunting forests in, for example,
Germany, Poland, and England (the New Forest was
first established as a royal hunting reserve in 1079
and has been protected ever since].
Modern protected areas took a long time to
become established compared with other
continents - in some parts these delays may have
been linked to the near-complete ownership and
use of the landscape going back for many centuries.
Some of the first sites were small nature reserves,
mostly established under private ownership. The
first national parks were established early in the
20th century (seven were established in Sweden in
1909, one in Switzerland in 19U, and one in Italy in
19221, while Poland had established 39 small nature
reserves by 1918. Many other countries did not
begin to establish protected area networks until the
19i0s or later
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
There are many different types of protected area
networks in Europe arising from international,
regional, national, and local initiatives developed for
a variety of reasons to safeguard species, habitats,
and landscapes. For example, many countries have
national parks comprising large areas representing
the most significant habitats and landscapes of the
country; nature reserves representing small areas
devoted primarily to nature protection; natural
monuments to protect special features, often pres-
enting key stages in the Earths history and the
representative landforms; and regional or nature
parks, and landscape parks or protected landscape
areas, combining landscape conservation, recre-
ation, and other economic activity.
With more than 53 000 protected areas,
Europe has one of the most complex systems of
protected areas in the world. At the same time the
230
Europe
S, Chape
Hikers in Kolovesi National Parl(, Finland.
231
The world's protected areas
1000
800
600
o 400 —
200 —
I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (l<m')
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA (l<m')
±
" 1894'95 1900'05'10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 iO '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000'05
Europe: Growth ot protected areas networl<, 1894-2005
total area covered by these sites, 874 473 km^, only
represents about 1 7 percent of the land area, close
to the global average, and the average size of sites
in Europe is much smaller than in any other region.
Almost 52 percent of the sites do not have
lUCN management categories. For many this may
indicate a lack of information; these also include a
large number of sites, such as the sites of special
scientific interest in the UK, for which legal
protection is quite limited, and hence they do not
easily fit into the lUCN scheme. The stricter
categories of protection (l-lil| make up about 11
percent of the total area. Category V, although
making up only 6 percent of sites, covers 40 percent
of the total protected area - these large protected
landscapes reflect the importance of cultural
landscapes and semi-natural habitats across this
region. By contrast with the global position.
Category II sites constitute only 12 percent of the
total area, reflecting the relative weakness of
protection of many national parks and landscape
protection areas.
Europe: Growth In the number of protected areas, 1894-2005
40 000 1—
H Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
35 QQQ B Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered Into WDPA
30 000 —
25 000 —
.r 20 000 —
1/1
15000 —
10 000 —
5 000 —
i_L
" 1894 '95 190005 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 200a'05
232
Europe
Some 829 sites are classed as coastal and
marine, and these are distributed through all of
the regional seas - Mediterranean, Baltic, North,
Irish - and around the coasts of most countries.
There remain significant gaps in the systems for
the coastal and marine environment, however,
and a large number of these sites are only coastal
and do not include significant marine areas. The
total marine surface area protected is some
66 000 km2.
Most protected areas in Europe are on land
ovi/ned by national or regional governments and
state organizations. There is now/ a greater diversity
of ownership types as a result of the expansion of
the protected areas to implement the Natura 2000
network, for example on private land In Finland; the
growth of charitable environmental organizations In
countries such as the UK that own and manage
land; and the privatization of land following the
changes of government in central and eastern
Europe. A good deal of cooperation exists between
the protected areas authorities and the owners and
managers of sites.
With the development of devolved decision
making, particularly in Austria, Germany, Italy, and
Spain, and more recently In the UK, protected
area jurisdiction has passed to the provincial level
of government. However, national responsibility
remains due to international obligations.
The Natura 2000 network has been largely
established across 15 countries and preparations
are well advanced for Implementation in a further
ten. Some 236 000 km2 have been classified as
sites under the birds directive; this represents
between 5 and IL, percent of the national territory
in the 15 countries. Under the habitats directive
some 458 000 km^ have been classified, repres-
enting 1-lli percent of the territory In the
15 countries.
A number of lessons can be learned from the
Implementation process. EU Member States have
had to Implement the new measures but have done
so at a variable pace. Consultation with stake-
holders was not a formal part of the process and, as
many sites In some countries were on private land,
there was a great deal of resentment and also many
legal challenges. From a slow initial pace, the
implementing authorities were forced to quicken
the process under threat of legal challenge either
from non-governmental organizations or from the
European Commission. A number of cases were
subject to proceedings at the European Court and
Europe: Protected areas network by lUCN category,
2005
lUCN category
Total
sites
1 577
Total
area Ikm^l
85 835
lb
542
39 9A5
II
275
108 569
III
3 570
4 455
IV
16 331
70 586
V
3 035
348 593
VI
203
22 010
No cateqon/
27 527
194 479
Total
53 060
874 473
Europe: Protected areas network by lUCN category
(percentage of total area), 2005
No Category 122%)
VI 13%) -
la 110%)
lb 15%)
11112%)
- Ill 13%)
IV (8%)
V 140%)
Europe: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
30 000
25 000
20 000 -
15 000 -
10 000
5 000
la lb
III IV V VI category
233
The world's protected areas
Areas of Europe protected (by country), 2005
Country/territories
Albania
Land area Ikm^)
28 750
Total protected area Ikm^)
1 029
Total number ot sites
52
Andorra
/.50
33
2
Austria
83 860
23 475
1087
Belgium
30 510
1052
618
Bosnia and Herzegovina
51 130
271
31
Bulgaria
110910
11 184
754
Croatia
56 5i0
5 721
200
Czech Republic
78 870
12451
1 768
Denmark
43 090
7 156
357
Estonia
45 100
21473
11 242
Finland
338 150
30 698
3 466
France
551 500
75 277
1 334
Germany
357 030
114914
7 261
Gibraltar
10
<1
1
Greece
131 960
6 884
147
Hungary
93 030
8 300
236
Iceland
103 000
9 807
79
Ireland
70 270
810
91
Italy
301 340
59 886
780
Latvia
64 600
10 583
542
Liechtenstein
160
64
10
Lithuania
65 200
7 170
297
Luxembourg
2 590
441
63
Macedonia FYR
25 710
1 833
83
Malta
320
59
93
Monaco
2
1
3
Montenegro. Rep-
n/a
1 034
38
Netherlands
41 530
7 844
1 596
Norw/ay
323 880
20 703
1 795
Poland
323 250
90 712
1822
Portugal
91 980
7 639
69
Romania
238 390
12 277
181
San Marino
60
Serbia, Rep
n/a
2 837
140
Slovakia
49 010
12 347
1 176
Slovenia
20 250
1 496
48
Spain
505 990
54 400
621
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Islands 62 010
116 076
29
Sweden
449 960
49 137
5 032
Switzerland
41 290
11852
2 190
United Kingdom
242 910
75 546
7 7263
these helped to clarify the terms of the directives in
favor of species and habitat protection and against
commercial pressures. The definition of habitats
varies from the very detailed to the broad brush, and
some major inshore habitats are missing. The sites
have been identified without complementary
measures to adjust policies and land uses which
impact unfavorably on them, such as financial
support tor agriculture. The financial resources and
associated instruments for implementing the
network have only just been investigated, many
years after the start ot the process of designation,
and there is no guarantee that the substantial costs
can be met.
236
Europe
Europe: Biosphere reserves, 2005
Europe: World Heritage sites, 2005
Country
Austria
No. of
sites
Protected
area Ikm^)
528
Country
No. of
Protected
sites
area Ikm^)
2
/.lO
Bulgaria
16
378
Croatia
1
2 000
Czech Republic'
6
4 505
Estonia
1
15 600
Finland
z
7 700
France^
7
7619
Germany-
U
17716
Greece
2
89
Hunqar/
J
1 289
Ireland
2
111
Italy
8
5 659
Latvia
1
i7l&
Montenegro, Rep
2
2 367
Netherlands
1
2 600
Poland'.^,*
9
3 980
Portugal
1
6
Romania
3
6 620
Serbia, Rep,
z
2 367
Slovakia^'^
A
2413
Slovenia
2
1 957
Spam
33
22 717
Sweden
1 965
Switzertand
1.
2 121
United Kingdom
9
435
TOTALS
138
117 486
1 Krkonose/Karkonosze Biosphere Reserve is transboundary
between Czech Republic and Poland-
2 Vosges du Nord/Pfalzerwald Biosphere Reserve is
transboundary between France and Germany.
3 East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve is transboundary
between Poland, Slovakia, and the Ukraine.
A Tatra Biosphere Reserve is transboundary between Poland
and Slovakia.
5 Because of the transboundary sites, the total figure for
number of sites is lower than the sum of the country totals.
Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies [notably of
France, the Netherlands, and the UK| are only included in this
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe:
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCPA region.
International sites
More than any other region, Europe has embraced
the concept of working internationally and
collaboratively in the designation of protected
areas. It has a greater number of World Heritage
and Ramsar sites and biosphere reserves than any
other region, although, mirroring the national
protected areas, these are generally not very large
and so the total area they occupy is much lower than
for many other regions. A number of these sites
Croatia
295
France'
231
Germany
1
Greece
? 7
Hungary'
<1
Italy
<1
Macedonia FYR
380
Montenegro, Rep
320
Norway
1 227
Poland^
55
Portugal
150
Romania
6 792
Serbia
320
Slovakia-'
<1
Slovenia
4
Spam'
4
869
Sweden
2
12 769
Switzerland
2
561
United Kingdom
3
189
TOTAL'
29
24 580
1 Pyrenees-Mont Perdu World Heritage Site is transboundary
between France and Spain.
2 Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst World Heritage
Site IS transboundary between Hungary and Slovakia and
comprises a small area of the cave system,
3 Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest World Heritage
Site 15 transboundary with Belarus,
4 Because of the transboundary sites, the total figure for
number of sites is lower than the sum of the country totals.
Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies Inotably of
France, the Netherlands, and the UKI are only included in this
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe;
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCPA region.
have been developed on the borders with
neighboring countries, and many are managed as
transboundary sites.
In addition to the major international conven-
tions, most countries have additional requirements
for establishing protected areas under various
European obligations. These include Natura 2000,
the Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention),
and the establishment of the Emerald network
(within EU countries this network is, in effect,
established under the Natura 2000 network]. The
importance of cultural landscapes in Europe is
recognized through the European Landscape
Convention, signed in 2000 but not yet ratified to
bring it into operation.
235
The world's protected areas
Europe: Ramsar sites, 2005
Country/territories
Albania
No. of
Protected
sites
area Ikm^l
2
335
Austria
19
1 382
Belgium
9
429
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1
74
Bulgaria
10
203
Croatia
li
805
Czecli Republic
11
434
Denmark
27
7 365
Estonia
11
2 183
Finland
^9
8 022
France
20
6 203
Germany
32
8 400
Greece
10
1 635
Hungary
23
1 772
Iceland
3
590
Ireland
45
670
Italy
lib
571
Latvia
6
1 492
Liechtenstein 1 1
Lithuania
5
505
Luxembourg
2
172
Macedonia FYR
1
189
Malta
2
<1
Monaco
1
<1
Montenegro, Rep,
5
408
Netherlands
43
8 169
Norway
32
1 159
Poland
13
1 258
Portugal
17
738
Romania
2
6 646
Serbia, Rep
5
408
Slovakia
13
389
Slovenia
2
10
Spam
49
1 731
Svalbard and
Jan Mayen Islands
5
6
Sw/eden
51
5 145
Switzerland
11
87
United Kingdom
150
7 790
TOTAL
738
77 374
Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies [notably of
France, the Netherlands, and the UKI are only included in this
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe:
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCRA region.
Other international agreements operate in
parts of the region. The cohesion mechanisms in
the Mediterranean under the Barcelona Convention
have resulted in the development of Special
Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance.
Marine and coastal areas of the Baltic are covered
under the Helsinki Convention, The Alpine Network
of Protected Areas has been established under the
Alpine Convention. The Carpathian Convention,
signed in 2003, will result in the establishment of a
Carpathian National Park Convention.
All of these initiatives have reinforced the role
of national governments and authorities in
protected area identification and management, and
can bring about tensions between the different
levels of legal jurisdiction in each country,
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The protection of the marine environment will be a
major priority for the future. New approaches are
required rather than transferring the terrestrial
approach. Marine systems are more dynamic and
unpredictable in space and time, and reflect major
global climatic and ocean circulation changes. The
ownership of the water column, the sea bed, and
marine natural resources add further challenges.
Third party access is a critical issue, especially
with respect to navigation and fishing rights.
Scientific information on the key marine features
and their management needs is required. With
this, development of mechanisms tor safeguarding
biomass and recruitment, including no-take zones
and zoning for different levels of sustainable
exploitation, should form the basis for the new
approaches. Completion of the designation of
protected areas within territorial limits alongside
the implementation of protection within the
exclusive economic zones and on the high seas
will be necessary. Effective engagement with key
interests, especially the various fishing and
aquaculture interests, will be essential.
For terrestrial protected areas the emphasis
must change from the identification and designation
of sites to improving their management to achieve
conservation and wider environmental goals. It will
be essential to ensure that natural processes and
functions are maintained, and restored where they
have become degraded (notably those Natura 2000
sites designated for their restoration potential],
species reinstated, and some translocated to
take into account climate changes. This will
require changes in those land uses and financial
incentives which impact natural resources and
processes in and adjacent to protected areas. Such
changes are essential in the operation of agri-
culture policies to stimulate environmental
236
Europe
Adamello Brenta
Natural Park, Italy.
management. Management improvement will need
to embrace all components of protected areas: fund
raising, economic activity, business planning and
management, stakefiolder engagement. It will
be necessary to ensure that the skills needed
are available among protected area staff and
cooperative training programs established
throughout the region.
Terrestrial protected areas are too often seen
in isolation from each other in space. Therefore the
further implementation of connectivity measures,
such as the Pan-European Ecological Network, and
where appropriate the physical development of
corridors connecting protected areas, will be
necessary. Also, protected areas should be seen
increasingly as part of whole environmental
systems; it will be prudent to develop and imple-
ment strategies and plans for biogeographical
regions rather than the slavish adherence to
administrative boundaries which often have no
relevance in nature. National and regional efforts
will also be required to identify any gaps in the
systems of protected areas. A biogeographical
framework should be adopted for this work. None of
these improvements can be achieved without a
substantial increase in financial resources from all
sources: public, private, and charitable.
There are many different structures for the
governance of protected areas in Europe. Future
challenges will be to ensure a greater degree of
meaningful involvement by local and other
stakeholders. This will require a change from the
present governance structures in many protected
areas to those which are representative and
inclusive of all relevant interests. Increasing the
engagement of other stakeholders, especially local
communities, and improving their capacity to
contribute to management, will be vital.
Action is likely to be taken at different scales.
Within the expanding European Union, the Natura
2000 network will be implemented, and monitoring
regimes established, with the focus of attention on
management effectiveness in relation to the species
and habitats of significance. Informal approaches
through corridors and networks are likely to
continue, for instance for the major river systems
such as the Danube, and in the regional seas such
as the Mediterranean, which cross many national
boundaries. Attention should also be paid to the
further possibilities of "peace parks" as part of the
environmental and societal reconstruction in the
Balkans, and cooperation on transboundary
protected areas where the management is out of
step between the adjacent authorities.
237
The world's protected areas
West and Central Africa
Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic. Chad, Congo,
Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia. Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and PrIncipe,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
Contributors: M. Bakarr, R. Kormos. and E. Lisinge
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
In total, this WCPA (World Commission on Protected
Areas] region includes 31 countries, including the
francophone African countries of Djibouti on the
east coast, and the Indian Ocean island nations of
Madagascar, Comoros, and Mauritius, based on an
administrative decision by lUCN. In this study, these
countries have been included in the Eastern and
Southern Africa region analysis for reasons of
geographic logic.
West Africa stretches from the Cape Verde
islands and Mauritania in the west to Niger and
Nigeria in the east; vi^hile Central Africa extends
from Cameroon and Chad in the north to Rwanda
and Burundi in the east, and Angola in the south,
including the island nation of Sao Tome and
Principe. West and Central Africa are endowed with
a rich biological heritage, with representation of
most of the world's major tropical biomes, including
deserts, mountains, forests, lal<es, rivers, and
coastal marine ecosystems.
The ecology of West and Central Africa's
biomes is primarily determined by rainfall
gradients. In West Africa, the climate is wettest in
the southwest and becomes progressively drier to
the north and east, transitioning from lowland
rainforest in the southwest into savanna woodlands
further north. In Central Africa, the climate
becomes drier to the north. The rainforests in Africa
are drier than those on other continents, receiving
on average between 1 600 and 2 000 millimeters of
rain per year. Most areas experience two peal<
rainfalls and a dry season of three months.
The Congo Basin contains the second largest
continuous tropical rainforest in the world, where
dense forest covers more than 1 .9 million km^. The
southern fringes of the Sahara Desert and savanna
woodlands of the Sudano-Sahelian region also
238
West and Central Africa
M Harvey/StfU Pictures
Orphaned western lowland gorilla [Gorilla gorilla gorilla).
239
The world's protected areas
SENEi
GUINEA-" *^Xr
BISSAU . f«,' .,
SIERRA
LEONE
LIBERIA '
COTE D'lVOIRE
•°"\' ^ENIN t**''
TOGO ,';:
1
NIGERIA
; EQUATORL\L GUINEA,^
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE & GABON SCONGO,
' CENTRAfflkFRICAN
republic
;rook.
ATLANTIC OCEAN
DEl!«IOCRATIC REPUBLJ"
OP THE CONGO
BURUNDI
25»30W 24°W 22°30'W
IS'SQiN -
CAPE VERDE
50 100 150 hm
10W
Source: UNEP-WCMC
240
West and Central Africa
support large populations of wildlife, including a
diverse array of megafierbivores such as elepfiants,
antelopes, and filppopotamus. The region is drained
by dozens of major rivers, including the Gambia,
Niger, and Congo. Further north the region grades
into the dry deserts of the southern and central
Sahara, Including the TIbesti Mountains rising to
over 3 iOO meters in northern Chad, with a slightly
more reliable water supply and an important array
of desert species, including several rare antelopes.
The Gulnea-Congollan lowland rainforests are
one of Earth's biologically richest ecosystems. They
form a belt along the Gulf of Guinea coast and Into
the vast Congo Basin wilderness, within which
several distinct vegetation units have been defined
(White 1983, Sayer, Harcourt & Collins 19921. The
lowland rainforests occur in two major blocks: the
Upper Guinea forest to the west; and the Nigeria-
Cameroon coastal forests from western Nigeria
through southwestern Cameroon. These are
separated by the 'Dahomey Gap,' an area of savanna
and degraded dry forest In Togo and Benin.
The Central Africa or Congolian' forests are
relatively more extensive and constitute several
distinct units: the Cameroonlan highlands (along
the Nigeria-Cameroon border, and Including the
offshore Island of Bioko], the Albertine Rift high-
lands (eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo
IDRCI, Rwanda, Burundi, and western Uganda),
forests of the Angolan Escarpment (northwestern
Angola!, and lowland Congolian forests. The
lowland forests are further subdivided Into the
western equatorial forest, the eastern lowland
forest, and the so-called 'Cuvette Centrale' (low-
lying area within the curve of the Congo Riverl.
The freshwater systems are extremely rich. At
the heart of Africa, the Gulnea-Congolian forested
rivers are some of the richest waters on the
continent, with species adapted to life in rapids,
swamp forests, large and small rivers, and lateral
lakes. More than 700 fish are recorded from the
Congo Basin alone, about 500 of which are endemic.
Other important systems Include the floodplalns
of the Inner Niger Delta (Mall), the crater lakes of
the Cameroonian highlands, the forested rivers of
Upper Guinea, and the swamp forests of the Niger
Delta. In the drier areas beyond the forests, water is
a more precious resource, but there remain some
Important wetland areas, notably the large riverine,
lacustrine, and flooded grassland ecosystems
around the Inner Niger Delta and Lake Chad.
This region is also endowed with rich coastal
and marine communities. There are extensive
mangrove habitats in most countries. Offshore
waters are highly productive, centered around the
Canary Current, Guinea Current, and Benguela
Current large marine ecosystems. Despite their
tropical location, both the Canary and Benguela
Current systems are dominated by temperate
waters, and by powerful upwellmgs creating
nutrient-rich waters with valuable, although already
overexplolted, fisheries. The Guinea Current eco-
system Is tropical, with considerable terrestrial
Inputs of both freshwater and nutrients, but also
seasonal upwelllngs of cooler, nutrient-rich waters.
No large coral reefs are found here, but there are
important and unique coral communities around
some rocky shores and the offshore islands. Sites
such as Bijagos Archipelago Biosphere Reserve and
Banc D'ArguIn World Heritage Site provide a critical
staging post and overwintering site for migrating
birds and are home to many wetland species.
In attempting to quantify and map the diversity
of the region, almost all surveys have drawn
particular attention to the areas of rainforest. Some
41 centers of plant diversity and 21 priority
ecoregions (from the WWF Global 200) have been
mapped. There is important regional endemism,
but smaller scale pockets of local endemism are
not so common, and only ten endemic bird areas
have been identified, including the oceanic offshore
islands of Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, and
Annobon (Equatorial Guinea).
Topi iDamatiscus
lunatus], Akagera
National Park, Rwanda.
H Jhomashoff/StiU Pictures
241
The world's protected areas
1000
800
iOO
/lOO
200
I Cumulative area of sites with Icnown establishment date Ikm'l
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^)
" 1908 10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 55 '60 65 70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05
West and Central Africa: Growth of protected areas network, 1908-2005
The biological richness in West and Central
Africa is rivaled by the region's cultural heritage.
More than 352 nnillion people are found in the two
regions combined la little over half of the sub-
Saharan population). Use of traditional resources is
widespread in many ethnic groups, from the Tuaregs
of the Sahel to Pygmies in the Congo Basin, including
hunting for bushmeat, fishing, collection of medicinal
plants, and harvesting of products for food and
shelter. In addition, habitat clearance for growing
crops is also widely practiced, particularly in the West
African forest region where slash-and-burn farming
IS the dominant form of land use. Though the
exploitation of resources by people has been
sustainable in the past, current patterns suggest that
the rich natural heritage is facing increasing
degradation. The lowland rainforests constitute one
of the world's most threatened ecoregions (Myers
ef a/., 20001.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Conservation efforts in West and Central Africa date
back to the colonial era. Early protection was
established to regulate the use of, or prevent
West and Central Africa: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1908-2005
2 000 1—
1500 —
1 000
500
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
ll
1908 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 85 '90 '95 2000 05
242
West and Central Africa
depletion of. natural resources. Elephant reserves
were established in what is now the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in the late 1 9th century, while
a series of game reserves was established in Ghana
in 1909. Timber protection was also an early priority
and the first forest reserve systems were
established in Nigeria at the turn of the 19th century
and in Sierra Leone in 1910. Gambia established a
water catchment area in 1916, in what was to
become the Abuko Nature Reserve. These trends
continued through the 1920s and 1930s, but this
period also saw the declaration of some of the first
national parks.
Today's Virunga National Park in ORG and
Rwanda's Volcans National Park were founded as
one in 1925 as Albert National Park, Africa's first,
followed by Odzala National Park in Congo in 1935.
Burkina Faso established five pares de refuge
in 1926, one of which now forms part of the 'W
National Park, while Niger's portion of the same
transboundary park dates back to 1937. Many of
these sites were located in remote areas and often
accessible only to isolated human settlements.
These protected areas, established under
colonial rule, were often bounded by arbitrary and
artificial boundaries, with only limited under-
standing of local political and cultural sensitivities.
In most countries, the colonial governments cre-
ated centralized Forest Departments, usually com-
bining wildlife management and protected areas
under Water and Forestry as part of the Ministry of
Agriculture. Wildlife was generally claimed as
Crown property and local hunting was often banned.
In many places little has changed since colonial
times; the management of protected areas remains
centralized in most countries and there is very
uneven division of resources, with little local owner-
ship or involvement in protected areas.
As in other parts of Africa, protected area
creation increased during the post-colonial period
in West and Central Africa, and indeed many
countries continue to add new areas as oppor-
tunities emerge. However, protected areas are
facing increasing management challenges assoc-
iated with the expansion of human populations and
agricultural systems, often right up to protected
area boundaries. Subsistence activities, such as the
hunting of bushmeat, have become increasingly
commercialized, resulting in uncontrolled over-
exploitation of biological resources. This in turn has
fueled poverty and threatens the subsistence
livelihoods of millions of people. More recently, civil
unrest has greatly impacted the protected area
systems of this region. Protected areas in Liberia,
Sierra Leone, and the DRC, for example, have faced
increased pressure as displaced people try to eke
out a living under the most difficult circumstances.
It is against this backdrop - of a rich natural
heritage facing overexploitation, ecosystem degra-
dation, and civil crisis - that conservation in West
and Central Africa must now take place. Innovation
IS needed in the institutions, the policies, and the
management strategies to integrate conservation
with mainstream initiatives in other sectors. The
growing challenge of addressing human livelihood
needs (often couched as 'poverty alleviation' by the
development community! implies that protected
area management must accommodate the prior-
ities and interests of local people living across the
broader landscape. Governments, development
agencies, and local communities need to under-
stand the significance of protected areas not just for
preserving the unique natural heritage, but also for
maintaining ecosystem processes that are vital to
local, national, and regional economies.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAI
holds information on some 2 601 protected areas in
West and Central Africa, which cover a total of 1.1
million km2. This represents almost 9 percent of the
total land area - a lower proportion than most other
regions, which is exacerbated by the large number
of sites in which effective, strict protection is absent.
The majority of sites (89 percent) have no
assigned lUCN management category, and repre-
sent 29 percent of the total area protected. These
sites are dominated by around 2 000 forest reserves
where levels of protection are probably very low.
lUCN Management Categories II and IV are well
represented. All countries have designated some
proportion of their territory as protected areas with
the exception of Sao Tome and Principe. However,
only a few have very extensive protected area
systems, with Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African
Republic, Congo, Cote d'lvoire. Equatorial Guinea,
and Ghana all exceeding 15 percent of their total
territory protected.
There are only i3 marine and coastal
protected areas, covering a marine area estimated
at only 9 600 km^ - these are among the lowest
figures of any region. The few sites which cover
open ocean areas are almost entirely restricted
to countries affected by the Sahelian upwelling.
2/^3
The world's protected areas
Areas of West and Central Africa protected (by country), 2005
Country
Angola
Land area (km^l
1 246 700
Total protected area (knn^)
1 54 580
Total number of sites
16
Benin
112 620
26 428
59
Burkina Faso
274 000
42 082
83
Burundi
27 830
1 548
15
Cameroon
475 440
43 816
37
Cape Verde
4 030
14
51
Central African Republic
622 980
97 769
69
Chad
1 284 000
119 773
32
Conqo
342 000
48 740
22
Cote d'lvoire
322 460
54 854
325
DR Congo
2 344 860
191 406
83
Eguatonal Guinea
28 050
5 860
13
Gabon
267 670
41 464
22
Gambia
11 300
565
72
Ghana
238 540
36 872
321
Guinea
245 860
17 075
153
Guinea-Bissau
36 120
4 040
10
Liberia
1 1 1 370
15 785
16
Mall
1 240 190
26 333
13
Mauritania
1 025 520
17 730
9
Niger
1 267 000
84 141
6
Nigeria
923 770
55 891
1 007
Rwanda
26 340
2 008
5
Senegal
196 720
22 422
14
Sierra Leone
71 740
3 244
55
Togo
56 790
6 501
93
where fisheries conservation priorities have
helped raise awareness for increased protection.
Pare National du Banc dArguin 11 200 I<m2| in
Mauritania and the Bolama Bijagos Archipelago
Biosphere Reserve |1 046 km^) in Guinea-Bissau
are among the most important marine protected
areas in the region.
As noted in other regions, there have been
some recent developments in several countries
where the protected area systems are being
expanded to enhance coverage and representation
of existing biodiversity. In West Africa, the
government of Ghana has launched a major
initiative to designate 12 of its forest reserves as
globally significant biodiversity areas (GSBAsI that
will be managed exclusively for protection of
biodiversity In Central Africa, the government of
Cameroon recently added two new protected
areas to its existing system - Campo-Ma'an
12 700 km2| and Mbam et Djerem (4 165 km^l
national parks. In the Congo, the Odzala National
Park was significantly expanded fivefold to
13 600 km^ in 2000, making it one of the largest
tropical forest parks in Africa. In Gabon, the govern-
ment announced in 2002 the creation of 13 new
protected areas totaling 40 000 km^. enlarging the
system to cover 1 percent of the country.
Other forms of protection
Throughout West and Central Africa, many coun-
tries have historically maintained a system of
habitat reserves that are designated primarily to
regulate exploitation of resources. For example,
most forest countries in the regions have forest
reserves or foref classees (classified forests) that
are often protected from exploitation and encroach-
ment until assigned to a concessionaire. There are
some 2 000 such reserves in West and Central
Africa, and, although these areas seldom have any
form of management in place, their existence has
been crucial for maintaining forests that would
otherwise be converted to other uses. In addition to
the national system, the people of West and Central
Africa are also known for protecting natural habi-
246
West and Central Africa
tats as 'sacred groves' that are either revered for
spiritual reasons or used for ceremonial purposes.
The crucial importance of these non-conventional
protection strategies is gaining momentum
throughout the region as countries face increasing
challenges with management of conventional
protected areas.
In the last five years, at least two regional-
scale conservation priority-setting processes for
West Africa's Upper Guinea region and the Central
African forests, respectively, have helped promote
the value of forest reserves for biodiversity protec-
tion (Bakarr ef al., 2001, Kamdem-Toham ef a/.,
2003). Also, a meeting on the Niger River Basin
inspired the need for freshwater protection across
much of the Sahelian region of West Africa llssa
Sylla, 20021. Because these processes are largely
driven by expert opinion and analysis of biodiversity
distribution data, they are facilitating the creation of
new protected areas that maximize the coverage
and representation of both species and habitats.
International sites
Most of the countries in West and Central Africa
are party to several major International treaties,
including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
World Heritage Convention, and the Wetlands
IRamsarl Convention. In an effort to meet the
commitments associated with these conventions,
many countries have made progress in expanding
and strengthening their protected area networks.
There are 16 natural and mixed World Heritage
sites covering more than 211 000 km^ (some 70
percent of the total land area for World Heritage
sites in sub-Saharan Africa). In addition, there are a
total of 73 Ramsar sites and 31 biosphere reserves.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The challenges for protected areas in West and
Central Africa are similar to other regions, yet the
opportunities for meeting them remain limited as a
result of major civil conflicts across the region.
Nevertheless, important progress has been made
through the regional initiatives that have been
underway during the last decade. These Include
large-scale conservation planning processes such
as the Upper Guinea, Niger River Basin, and Congo
Basin priority-setting workshops; regional initia-
tives such as the Central Africa Regional Program
for the Environment ICARPE); and the lUCN-
coordinated Regional Marine Conservation Pro-
gram in West Africa. To build upon the momentum
West and Central Africa: Protected areas network
by lUCN category, 2005
lUCN category
la
Total
sites
19
Total
area Ikm^l
21 7A2
lb
7
11 740
11
91
348 462
III
A
398
IV
119
347 801
V
3
185
VI
45
67 806
No category
2 313
322 805
Total
2 601
1 120 942
West and Central Africa: Protected areas network
by lUCN category (percentage of total area), 2005
la 12%)
No Category
(29%
VI (6%
lb(1%l
11(31%)
IV 131%)
West and Central Africa: Number of protected
areas by lUCN category, 2005
2 500
2 000
1500
1000
500
la lb II III IV V VI category
245
The world's protected areas
West and Central Africa: Biosphere reserves, 2005
Country
West and Central Africa: Ramsar sites, 2005
No. of
Protected
Country
No. of
Protected
sites
area (km^)
sites
area Il<m2|
Benin
2
1 391
Benin'
2
29 283
Burl<ma Faso
2
5 320
Canneroon
3
8 760
Central African
Republic
2
16A02
Conqo
2
2 460
Cote d'lvoire
2
17 700
DR Conqo
3
2 827
Gabon
150
Ghana
78
Guinea
U
11 927
Guinea Bissau
1 012
Mall
25 000
Mauritania
<1
Niger'
2
251 281
Nigeria
1 306
Rwanda
125
Senegal
h
10 938
TOTAL
31
384 568
Region "W" is a transboundary site shared between Benin.
Burkina Faso and Niger
West and Central Africa: World Heritage sites, 2005
Country
Cameroon
No. of
Protected
sites
area ll<m2|
1
5.260
Central African Republic
1
17 400
Cote d'lvoire'
3
14 843
DR Congo
5
68 546
Guinea'
1
130
Mall
1
4 000
Mauritania
1
12 000
Niger
2
79 560
Senegal
2
9 290
TOTAL
17
211 029
1 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve is a transboundary
World Heritage site and hence the total number of sites in
the region is less than the sum of the nattonal sites
generated by tliese regional initiatives, an integ-
rated strategy for developing a compreliensive pro-
tected area systems is needed to maximize
biodiversity and ecosystem representation across
the region.
A crucial step in this regard will be to mobilize
government agencies, donors, conservation
organizations, and research institutions to jointly
identify and refine targets based on an adequate
Burkina Faso
3
2 992
Burundi
1
10
Central African Rep.
1
1013
Chad
4
49 571
Congo
1
4 390
Cote d'lvoire
6
1 273
DR Congo
2
8 660
Eguatonal Guinea
3
1 360
Gabon
3
10 800
Gambia
1
200
Ghana
6
1 784
Guinea
14
55 879
Guinea-Bissau
1
391
Liberia
1
761
Mall
1
41 195
Mauritania
3
12311
Niger
12
4 3179
Nigeria
1
581
Senegal
4
997
Sierra Leone
1
2 950
Togo
2
1 944
TOTAL
73
243 631
understanding of biodiversity patterns, ecosystem
processes, and socioeconomic realities. The extinc-
tion risks facing many large mammals in West and
Central Africa suggest that biodiversity-driven
targets will need to become a primary focus of any
comprehensive protected area strategy. Such an
effort will also help establish baseline information
and strengthen local institutional capabilities for
effective long-term management and monitoring.
Regional-scale ecosystem assessments have
already shown the need to increase the proportion
of lowland rainforests in the existing network
because of their crucial role in protecting water-
sheds and providing a range of ecological services.
In West Africa's Upper Guinea region, options
for forest protection are already very limited due to
the highly fragmented nature of the ecosystem, and
one critical response will be to target forest
reserves for biodiversity conservation. The GSBA
approach in Ghana provides a valuable model, as
this has enabled forest reserves to be quickly
upgraded and managed without major infusions of
external funding. Although deforestation trends are
still relatively slow in Central Africa (0.02-0.45
246
West and Central Africa
The future of protected
areas in West and
Central Africa will
increasingly depend on
the commitment of civil
society toward
understanding and
appreciating their value
to livelihoods,
environmental stability,
and rural development.
percent per year] compared with most West African
countries, the potential for rapid clearance exists
due to rising populations in the region.
Other l<ey targets include coastal marine
habitats (primarily mangroves] along the entire Gulf
of Guinea, freshwater habitats (e.g. floodplains,
lateral lakes, swamp forests], and the montane
ecoregions (notably the Fouta Djallon highlands in
Guinea and Mount Cameroon, and adjacent high-
lands in the Nigeria-Cameroon cross-border area).
The potential for transboundary conservation
also needs further development (van der Linde et al.
2001]. In addition to improving management across
borders, transboundary protected areas tend to
foster integrated landscape approaches, and help
secure large areas for wide-ranging species such
as elephants. Efforts are already under way in the
West Africa region between Benin, Burl<ina Faso,
and Niger (Park W], Guinea and Senegal (Niokolo-
Badiar]; and in Central Africa between Cameroon,
Central African Republic, and Congo (Sangha River
Trinational Area]. Transboundary conservation will
obviously present new challenges, particularly in
respect to governance and institutional issues. And
while decentralization of power is becoming more
common in other parts of Africa, it is still relatively
nascent in West and Central Africa. There will be a
need to reconcile roles of wildlife and forestry
departments to help improve the management of
protected areas in a landscape context.
Finally, the future of protected areas in West
and Central Africa will increasingly depend on the
commitment of civil society toward understanding
and appreciating the value of such areas to
livelihoods, environmental stability, and rural devel-
opment. Because of the potential to mainstream
protected areas in national development, govern-
ment investment in protected area agencies will
likely improve considerably when the interest of civil
society is enhanced.
247
The world's protected areas
Eastern and Southern Africa
Botswana, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte (France),
Mozambique, Namibia, Reunion (France),
Seychelles, Somalia. South Africa, Sudan,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Contributors: N. Burgess, S. Kanyamibwa, G. Llewellyn, M. Thieme, R. Taylor
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The WCPA administrative region covers 19
territories. However, for the purpose of better
geographic coherence for this study, four countries
from the West and Central Africa region have also
been included: Comoros, Djibouti, Madagascar, and
Mauritius. On the African mainland, countries in the
region range from Sudan in the north through the
countries of the Horn of Africa, eastern Africa, and
into southern Africa to the Cape of Good Hope. Aviray
from the coastal plains, most of the region is found
at altitudes over 1 000 meters, in particular across
the vast Central Plateau of southern Africa.
The vegetation of mainland Eastern and
Southern African is dominated by the Somali-Masai
and Zambezian biomes - large arid to seasonally
arid regions supporting savanna vi/oodland habitats
with high plant endemism distributed across a
dynamic landscape mosaic. Moving south, the
Zambezian vegetation types are replaced by those
of the Karoo-Namib regional center of endemism,
with low shrubs and grasses; the grassland-
dominated Kalahari-Highveld regional transition
zone; and finally by the Cape Floral Kingdom (White,
19831. This region, in particular, contains an amaz-
ing diversity of short shrubby vegetation types
supporting globally exceptional levels of plant and
invertebrate endemism. Lowland rainforests are
restricted to the Lake Victoria region and along the
coastal strip of eastern Africa (Sayer, Harcourt, and
Collins, 19921.
In the midst of a predominantly dry region
there are a number of moist mountain ranges,
which, because of their isolation, have formed
archipelago-like centers of endemism (White,
1983). The most important of these, biologically, are
the Eastern Arc (Tanzania and Kenya), the Albertine
Rift (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, western Tanzania,
and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo!, and
the Ethiopian highlands. These areas all possess
high rates of species endemism; the Eastern Arc
and Albertine Rift are globally exceptional in this
regard (Burgess et at., 200A).
The Indian Ocean islands are highly distinct
268
Eastern and Southern Africa
M Spalding
An Aldabra Sacred Ibis ( Threskiornis bernieri abbolti), Aldabra Atoll World Heritage Site, Seychelles.
249
The world's protected areas
I.-
Reunion (FRA)
r ^ MAURITIUS .5g,g
-3QtS
- ATLANTIC
, '; OCEAN
10°E 20°E
Source: UNEP-WCMC
300 600 900 km
4Q°E
250
Eastern and Southern Africa
from the African mainland, and have over 70
percent of all their species as strict endemics.
These endemic species are often found vi^ithin
endemic genera and families, including those with
ancient lineages within families, such as the lemurs
of Madagascar, that have been extinct on the
mainland for millions of years iMittermeier et at.,
19991. The offshore islands have witnessed high
rates of recent extinction, especially the smaller
islands of Seychelles, Mascarenes, and Comoros
(Burgess et ai, 20041.
Within the freshwater realm, Eastern and
Southern Africa contains the large Rift Valley lakes
and an extensive network of rivers and streams with
associated wetlands and swamps. The Great Lakes
of eastern Africa (Lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and
Malawi) are the most important in the world in
terms of their concentrations of endemic fish, with
Lake Malawi alone possessing upwards of 700
endemic cichlids (Turner ef ai 2001 1. Further north
in the highlands of Ethiopia, Lake Tana hosts the
only intact cyprinid species flock in the world.
Extensive wetlands are found in Kilombero
Valley, Moyowosi/Malagarasi system, and the
Ugalla River, the Okavango Delta, the Sudd, Lake
Chilwa, the Barotse Floodplain, the Kafue Flats,
Busanga and Lukanga swamps, and Lakes Mweru
and Bangweulu and associated swamps. These
contain large congregations of wetland birds and
other wildlife. In addition to large freshwater
wetlands, saline water bodies such as Etosha,
Natron, and Makgadikgadi provide specialized
habitats for most of the world's flamingos.
Madagascar's rivers and lakes are also home to a
distinctive freshwater fauna - including endemic
taxa of crayfish, aquatic insects, amphibians, and
fish. Endemic fish and frog species also survive in
the Mediterranean climate of the Cape region at the
southern tip of the continent.
The marine and coastal habitats of the region
are part of a western Indian Ocean center of
biodiversity. Subcenters of marine endemism occur
around the border between South Africa and
Mozambique, and the Mascarene Islands (Roberts
et ai, 20021. The South Equatorial Current hits the
eastern African coast at Cabo Delgado in
Mozambique, and then splits to flow north and
south. There is considerable coral reef develop-
ment, primarily of the fringing reef type, concen-
trated around the islands and along portions of the
coasts of Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique.
Seagrass beds are also extensive in shallow marine
areas. Southern Mozambique is dominated by
muddy waters and coastal dune fields, caused by
localized upwellings, combined with nutrient input
from major rivers such as the Zambezi.
The eastern African region is also the cradle
of humanity with the oldest fossils of hominids
extending back over five million years. Over the
millions of years that hominids and humans have
inhabited this region, they developed the use of fire
to facilitate hunting and farming, which may have
Eastern and Southern Africa: Growth of protected areas network, 1895-2005
1500 r—
1200 —
900 —
iOO —
300 —
I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date Ikm'l
I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^l
Il
ll
"1895 1900 05 '10 '15 '20 25 '30 '35 iO '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 ■90'95 2000'05
251
The world's protected areas
2 500 I—
2 000
1500 —
1000 —
500 —
I Cumulative number of sites with Icnown establishment date
\ Cumulative number of sites with unl<nown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
lAl
ll
" 1895 1900 05 '10 '15 '20 '25 30 '35 40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 70 75 80 85 ■90'95 2000 '05
Eastern and Southern Africa: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1896-2005
changed the appearance of the landscape. Due to
this ancient interaction between hunnans and their
environment, the habitats and species composition
of this region may be far more anthropogenically
altered than is currently accepted.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Traditional African societies used a variety of
systems to protect habitats and species. For
example, most (perhaps all] villages maintained
small patches of habitat as burial areas or for
traditional religious purposes. Many habitat man-
agement systems are still operational, for
example those of the Masai of eastern Africa and
the San Bushmen of southern Africa. However,
strictly protected areas were generally small in
traditional societies, and these approaches to
conservation are gradually being lost over many
parts of the region.
With European colonization, the creation of
government-designated protected areas began.
The first protected area in Africa, the Greater St
Lucia Wetland Park, was declared in 1895. During
the early 20th century, large protected area systems
were developed in colonial African countries. The
primary motivation of the colonial governments was
the preservation of 'wilderness' to provide oppor-
tunities for hunting big game animals (Neumann,
19981, and to a lesser extent for the protection of
water supply (e.g. Rodgers, 19931. Most reserves
dating from this period are located in areas
unsuitable for farming or commercial forestry, but
suitable for large game mammals - principally the
savanna woodland habitats that extend over large
parts of the region. For example, the Selous
Game Reserve (44 ODD km^) and the Kruger
National Park [19 000km21 both date from this
period. At the end of the colonial period in the early
19605, Eastern and Southern Africa possessed over
500 parks and reserves spanning more than
400 000 km2 of land.
The newly independent African nations have
continued to create government-controlled pro-
tected areas. At the same time there has been an
increasing effort to develop community-managed
reserves to support both human development and
achieve conservation goals. The majority of these
community-managed areas are found in southern
Africa, but they are increasing in number in eastern
Africa as v>/ell. Even more recently, companies and
individuals have started to create private reserves,
especially in southern Africa.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
In total, there are more than 4 000 protected areas
in a well-developed network across Eastern and
Southern Africa. More than 200 of these are lUCN
Category II national parks covering very large tracts
of land with high levels of protection. More than
3 000 sites lack lUCN management categories and
these include many forest reserves, wildlife
management areas, hunting areas, and private
reserves. In total, these different protected lands
cover 14.7 percent of the region.
252
Eastern and Southern Africa
In the marine realm, the declaration of
reserves has lagged behind that of terrestrial
habitats, with the first known marine protected area
(MPAl being the Tsitsikama National Park in South
Africa, first designated in 196^. However, over the
past decade there has been a dramatic increase
in the number and size of MPAs in the region. The
World Database on Protected Areas currently lists
139 MPAs, covering some 12 000 km^ of coastal and
oceanic water This figure represents some 0.15
percent of the exclusive economic zone areas
claimed by the region's countries, and the majority
are focused in coastal waters and around high-
profile ecosystems such as coral reefs (more than
2 000 km^, or 14 percent of all coral reefs, are
protected]. In several cases (e.g. St Lucia in South
Africa, Sadaani in Tanzania, and Maputo Elephant in
Mozambique), marine components are in the
process of being added to existing terrestrial parks.
Eastern African protected areas are not
randomly distributed; they are clumped geograph-
ically and disproportionately cover certain habitat
types. For example, the protected area networks of
Tanzania and Kenya cover much larger percentages
of those countries than the corresponding areas in
Sudan or Somalia - due mainly to political instability
in the latter countries. In terms of habitat coverage,
reserves cover disproportionate areas of savanna
woodland habitat with large mammals. In recent
decades, governments have worked to address this
situation and have increased the coverage of less-
represented habitats within their protected area
systems. New reserves have been established to
cover montane forest (e.g. Udzungwa Mountains
National Park in Tanzania! and Mediterranean
habitats in South Africa (e.g. the Knersvlakte and
Groenefontein Provincial Nature Reservesl.
Countries emerging from war are also enhancing
their protected area networks. For example,
Mozambique declared its new Quirimbas National
Park in 2002; it covers about 7 500 km^ of miombo
woodland, eastern African coastal forest, mangrove,
and marine habitats.
Despite these advances, recent analyses
indicate that the current protected area network
does not fully cover the distribution of biodiversity
in the region. Using data from all mammals,
amphibians, and threatened birds, significant
gaps in the protected area network are found in
the montane habitats of the region (the Eastern
Arc, the Albertine Rift, the Ethiopian highlands,
and the Kenyan highlands], the eastern African
Eastern and Southern Africa: Protected areas
network by lUCN category, 2005
lUCN category
la
Total
sites
17
Total
area Ikm^l
2 787
lb
7
1 251
II
220
508 603
III
2i
150
IV
U<^1
265 115
V
30
12 560
VI
219
543 869
No category
3 053
354545
Total
A 067
1 688 879
Eastern and Southern Africa: Protected areas
network by lUCN category (percentage of total
area], 2005
No Category 121%)
VI (32%l "^
II (3)%l
IV (16%)
VI1%)
Eastern and Southern Africa: Number of protected
areas by lUCN category, 2005
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
1500
1 000
500
la lb
No
VI category
253
The world's protected areas
Areas of Eastern and Southern Africa protected Iby country), 2005
Country/territories
Botswana
Land
area Ikm^l
581 730
Total protected area (km^)
175 650
Total number of sites
71
Comoros
2 230
404
1
D|ibouti
23 200
13
3
Eritrea
117 600
5 006
3
Ethiopia
1 10A300
186 198
40
Kenya
580 370
75 221
348
Lesotho
30 350
68
1
Madagascar
587 040
18 458
60
Malawi
118 480
19 405
130
Mauritius
2 040
162
26
Mayotte
370
64
8
Mozambique
801 590
65 260
42
Namibia
824 290
123 563
173
Reunion
2 510
246
40
Seychelles
450
453
20
Somalia
637 660
5 246
16
South Africa
1 221 040
81606
562
Sudan
2 505 810
1 198 424
26
Swaziland
17 360
601
8
Tanzania, United
Republic of
945 090
378 520
811
Uganda
241 040
63 368
747
Zambia
752 610
312 002
683
Zimbabwe
390 760
57 525
249
lowland coastal forests and Maputaland-
Pondoland, and in the Cape Fynbos and Succulent
Karoo of South Africa (Rodrigues et al.. 2003; see
also Chapter 101.
Ambitious conservation plans already exist
and are being implemented for the Cape Fynbos
and Succulent Karoo of South Africa leg. Cowling et
a/.. 20031. Similar planning and implementation
processes are underway in the eastern African
marine ecoregion, the eastern African coastal
forests, the Albertine Rift Mountains, and the
Eastern Arc Mountains. In all of these plans the
creation of new reserves and the upgrading of some
types of resen/es (e.g. forest reserves) to higher
levels of conservation are being advocated.
Another problem is that that many protected
areas are 'paper parks' with almost no operational
budget, few or no staff, and often with problems of
encroachment and poaching of large mammals. In
some countries there is pressure to reduce the area
of protected land. For example, the Kenyan
government tried to degazette sections of several
forest reserves for allocation to local farmers.
Although Kenyan public outcry prevented most of
this, it could have resulted in significant loss of
forest, biodiversity, and watershed protection.
Similar issues have been seen in Uganda, Tanzania,
and Zimbabwe.
Other forms of protection
Many countries in Eastern and Southern Africa
possess large numbers of legally gazetted forest
reserves managed by Forestry Departments.
Outside of South Africa these reserves are not
assigned an lUCN protected area management
category (l-VIl, and hence are often overlooked in
assessments of government protected area
networks. Throughout eastern Africa there are
more than 3 300 forest reserves (the majority of
which are included in the WDPA statistics) that
cover approximately 340 000 km^ of moist forest
and savanna woodlands. In some parts of the
region, forest reserves are the main type of
habitat protection. For example, in the globally
distinctive Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and
Kenya there are tew lUCN l-IV protected areas.
Nonetheless, more than 3 300 km^, or 14 percent,
of the mountain range is contained within forest
reserves, and these reserves include up to 90
percent of the remaining forest. These reserves
256
Eastern and Southern Africa
may contain as much biodiversity as the network
of lUCN l-VI coded wildlife reserves.
A less well quantified form of protection that is
particularly widespread in this region is that
provided by private protected areas. Although some
of these are included in the statistics from the
WDPA, not all are held in this database.
Another important form of protection, which is
becoming more popular, is the wildlife manage-
ment area. In these areas land under local control is
established as a community-managed area with
conservation objectives, but management remains
at the local level and benefits are derived directly
by the communities themselves, in some parts of
the region, especially in southern Africa, this mech-
anism represents the most promising way to
augment the well-developed government protected
area network.
International sites
Within the region only Djibouti and Somalia are not
party to the World Heritage Convention, with 10
countries having natural or mixed World Heritage
sites (43.5 percent of the countries!. A total of 22
natural or mixed World Heritage sites are located in
the region, including Ngorongoro, Kilimanjaro,
Selous, and Serengeti in Tanzania, Greater St Lucia
Wetland Park in South Africa, and Aldabra Atoll in
the Seychelles.
Sixteen countries are also signatories of the
Ramsar Convention, with a total of 49 sites
designated in 2005, 17 in South Africa. There is an
ongoing effort to expand the number of sites,
particularly in new signatory countries such as
Tanzania. Wetlands under this convention include
Lake Natron, and the Kilombero Valley and
Malagarasi-Moyowosi wetlands in Tanzania; Lakes
Naivasha, Baringo, Bogoria, and Nakuru in Kenya;
Etosha Pan in Namibia, the St Lucia System in
South Africa, and the Okavango Delta in Botswana.
Eight countries in the region also have
biosphere reserves under the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere Programme. These sites cover both
terrestrial and marine areas, and include the
28 000 km2 Lake Manyara in Tanzania.
Apart from the major international agree-
ments, there is growing cooperation at the
regional level, notably through the designation of
transboundary parks. A number of ambitious trans-
boundary parks and conservation areas are being
promoted in southern Africa, including seven very
large areas covering more than 200 000 km^. These
Eastern and Southern Africa: Internationally
protected areas, 2005
Country No. of Protected
sites area Ikm^j
Biosphere reserves
Kenya
6
15 434
Madagascar
3
4 938
Malawi
1
451
Mauritius
1
36
South Africa
U
33 711
Sudan
2
12 509
Tanzania. United
Republic of 3
52 281
Uganda
2
2 465
TOTAL
22
121 825
Ramsar sites
Botswana
1
68 640
Comoros
1
<1
D|ibouti
1
30
Kenya
5
1 018
Lesotho
1
4
Madagascar
5
7 856
Malawi
1
2 248
Mauritius
1
<1
Mozambique
1
13 000
Namibia
A
6 296
Seychelles
1
<1
South Africa
17
4 987
Sudan
1
10 846
Tanzania, United
Republic
of i
48 684
Uganda
2
370
Zambia
3
5 930
TOTAL
i9
169 911
World Heritage sites
Ethiopia
1
136
Kenya
2
3 050
Madagascar
1
1 520
Malawi
1
94
Seychelles
2
350
South Africa
7
10 655
Tanzania, United
Republic
of 4
68 605
Uganda
L
1317
Zambia'
1
38
Zinnbabwe'
2
6 797
TOTAL
22
92 562
1 MosJ-oa-TunyaA'ictoria Falls is a transboundary World
Heritage site oetween Zambia and Zimbabwe and hence the
total of World Heritage sites is less than the sum of the
individual countries
are the Ai-Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Conserv-
ation Park between South Africa and Namibia
255
The world's protected areas
uKhahlamba/
Drakensberg Park
World Heritage Site,
South Africa.
(5 921 km^l; the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park
between Soutfi Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe
135 000 km^h the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park
between Botswana and South Africa (37 991 km^l;
the Limpopo/ Shashe Transfrontier Conservation
Area between Botswana, South Africa, and
Zimbabwe (4 872 km^l; the Lubombo Transfrontier
Conservation Area between South Africa,
Swaziland, and Mozambique (4 195 km^l; the
Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation
and Development Area between South Africa and
Lesotho (13 000 km^l; and an area from Lake
Malawi/Nyasa to the Indian Ocean through southern
Tanzania and northern Mozambique (100 000 km^l.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Filling reservation gaps
Despite the impressive protected area network of
this region, gaps in the coverage of biodiversity
remain. These gaps are most serious in the
mountain areas where there are many species of
narrow distribution range and few protected
areas. Most existing protection in mountains is in
forest reserves, and altering the status of some of
these to nature reserve or national park would
raise the level of protection and help to fill one of
the key gaps in the region's protected area
system. The same is generally true for the eastern
African coastal forest mosaic habitats; here, too,
there are many species with small distribution
ranges, and once again most important habitat
is either found within forest reserves or is
unprotected.
Several countries announced the designation
of new protected areas at the September 2003 Vth
World Parks Congress, which will help to fill some
of the gaps in protection. For example, the president
of Madagascar stated that his country would triple
256
Eastern and Southern Africa
its protected area coverage. In addition, Mozam-
bique announced the creation of new MPAs to fill
key gaps in protection along its coastline, and
Tanzania said that it would increase its coverage
of marine habitats to 10 percent by 2010 and
20 percent by 2025. In addition, South Africa will be
expanding the existing St Lucia reserve northwards
to the border with Mozambique.
Improving management effectiveness
Improving the management of paper parks in the
region is a serious challenge, given the high
demand for natural resources and extensive
poverty. Government budgets are inadequate to the
task such that other sources of funding are needed.
Innovative market mechanisms, such as water pay-
ments, biodiversity markets, carbon sequestration,
tourism, and revenue-sharing approaches are
being, tested. Other novel financing systems,
including combining private business partnerships
with conservation trust funds, must also be
investigated and used when appropriate.
Transboundary protected areas
Many border regions across Africa have been
areas of conflict. These are also areas that have
been politically and economically neglected, have
low population densities, and have relatively
undamaged ecosystems. A number of trans-
boundary parks have already been designated and
others are being considered. Such sites represent
opportunities for enhancing peace and coop-
eration between nations , as well as conserving the
natural environment.
Private reserves and land purchase
In Africa, land purchase for conservation is
relatively common in the savanna-woodland
habitats of southern Africa, and in South Africa, for
example, there are many private nature reserves. In
eastern Africa land has traditionally been either
communally owned or vested with the state;
however, changes in the land laws of many eastern
African nations are now making land purchase
possible. Carefully targeted land purchase might
achieve much for conservation in eastern Africa. For
example, an Italian non-governmental organization
purchased the Mkwaja Ranch in coastal Tanzania
and donated it to the Tanzanian government as an
extension to the Sadaani Game Reserve, which was
declared a national park in 2003.
Hunting concessions
Hunting concessions occur within government-
managed game and hunting reserves in all
southern African nations and in Tanzania.
Companies or private individuals buy concessions
and then sell the hunting rights to tourists. Local
communities and private landowners, especially
in southern Africa, are developing a similar
approach to conservation. The financial benefits
are clear, and these are giving an easily measured
value to wild habitat and species. However, there
remain challenges to ensuring sustainability, and
preventing changes to the ecosystem from
activities such as re-stocking, changes in natural
fauna, or even vegetation clearance to encourage
target species.
Community conservation
There has been a paradigm shift to community-
based conservation in this region. Strictly prot-
ected areas remain a core component of
conservation efforts, but more socially just and
participatory approaches are increasingly pract-
iced, with a number of emerging consequences.
Incentive and utilization-based approaches to
conservation are now common within comm-
unities and also among large private landowners.
The economic importance of wildlife, fisheries,
and watershed protection are also driving land
restoration and purchases for conservation.
Southern Africa is a world leader in community-
based conservation, in which both communities
and wildlife benefit, and similar community
conservation areas are also common in Namibia,
Botswana, and Zimbabwe. Changes in the laws of
a number of eastern African countries are also
providing communities with a greater role in
establishing and managing their own protected
areas. Both village forest reserves and
community-based wildlife management areas are
now being promoted as conservation areas in
eastern African countries. These wildlife
management areas can provide both wild meat
and tourist viewing opportunities, and hence bring
income to rural populations.
257
The world's protected areas
North Africa and the Middle East
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain. Cyprus, Egypt,
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman,
Occupied Palestinian Territories, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
Western Sahara, Yemen
Contributors: E. Sattout, M. S. A. Sulayem, M. Spaiding
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
Stretching across five time zones, the 23 countries
and territories of the North Africa and Middle East
region span a considerable portion of the
continents of Africa and Asia, but are united by
common strands of geology, climate, and ecology,
as well as culture, history, and traditions.
Geologically the region covers parts of the
African and Eurasian Tectonic Plates, as well as the
entire Arabian Plate. The region encompasses a
long coastline with the Atlantic, the entire southern
and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, the
southern shores of the Blacl< and Caspian Seas, and
the seas surrounding the Arabian Peninsula - the
Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, part of the Arabian Sea,
the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Gulf. Most of the
region consists of drylands and deserts, including a
large part of the Sahara Desert across North Africa,
and the largest unbroken sand desert in the world,
the Rub al Khali in southern Arabia. Mountains are
also widespread, including the Atlas Mountains
across Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (reaching to
A 165 meters), the Hejaz and Asir Mountains in
southwestern Arabia 13 760 meters), the Zagros
Mountains and Elburz Mountains of Iran (5 681
meters), and the various mountain ranges of
Afghanistan reaching into the Karakoram
Mountains (6 504 meters). The lowest land surface
on Earth is also found in the region - the shores of
the Dead Sea are some iOO meters below sea level.
Although dominated by arid and semi-arid
conditions, the region does include more humid
areas, and there are forests in some of the
mountain areas, notably across Turkey, and
important wetlands, such as the marshes and
deltas of Mesopotamia (mostly in southern Iraq).
Lying between Europe, Africa, and Asia the
region has a great range of biogeographical
influences, reflected in the diversity of plants and
animals from each of these regions. Other species
are unique, having evolved, or having survived, as
relicts from earlier times. During the last Ice Age
this region was cooler and wetter, with more
widespread savanna and woodland, and isolated
258
North Africa and the Middle East
' Spalding
Wadi Rum National Park, Jordan.
259
The world's protected areas
J^'.
f^~
•V
Source: UNEP-WCMC
260
North Africa and the Middle East
pockets of more amenable climate still remain. The
region has also given rise to many important crop
species, including wheat, barley, certain legumes,
olives, figs, pomegranate, and almonds. Significant
genetic diversity in these species remains, both as
wild progenitors of these crops, and as varieties still
grown in traditional agricultural systems across the
region. The Mediterranean Basin forms an imp-
ortant center of biodiversity, while other key
ecoregions include the temperate forests and
freshwaters of Anatolia iTurkeyl, the Mesopotamian
wetlands and deltas, the highlands of southern
Arabia, and the small island of Socotra (Yemeni with
its highly distinct flora.
The marine ecosystems also encompass
considerable diversity. The Atlantic coast is domin-
ated by the south-flowing Canary Current which
brings relatively cool waters and produces
nutrient-rich upwellings that support highly prod-
uctive ecosystems. The region's Mediterranean
coast has suffered less from extensive coastal
development than the European shores, and supp-
orts important shallow-water Mediterranean
ecosystems. Coral reefs, mangroves, and sea-
grasses are found on all the shores around the
Arabian Peninsula. The greatest marine bio-
diversity is found in the Red Sea with ideal
conditions for coral growth and a rich fauna that
includes a large number of endemic species.
Cooler, nutrient-rich upwellings mean highly
productive waters off the southern shores of the
Arabian Peninsula, and onshore there are highly
unusual algal-dominated communities alongside
the coral reefs. These marine ecosystems support
important fisheries, and are also home to a large
number of charismatic species, including many
cetacean species, marine turtles, dugongs, and
the last remaining Mediterranean monk seals. The
Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Mediterranean, and Canary
Current areas are all listed as important marine
ecoregions by WWF.
Humans have shaped the landscape of this
region over many millennia. The earliest known
human settlements, such as Jericho, are found
here. As well as the cultivation of the first crop
plants, it was in the region known as the Fertile
Crescent, stretching from the Mediterranean to the
Arabian Gulf, following the Tigris, Euphrates, and
Jordan Rivers, that the first known domestication of
livestock (including sheep, goats, cattle, and
donkeys] occurred.
The degree of human usage and influence on
the landscapes is highly varied; even in the human-
dominated landscapes, biodiversity remains impor-
ant, while away from regular water supplies,
pastureland replaces arable farming, and in drier
areas temporary grazing is undertaken with mobile
or nomadic herders. There are still wide areas of
wilderness in the driest areas, and on the high
mountain peaks.
Unfortunately dramatic changes have taken
place on many of these landscapes in recent
decades. Massive alterations to water supplies,
including dam building and drainage, have led to the
loss of vast areas of wetlands. The annual Nile
flooding, which built the vast Nile Delta and revital-
ized soils over the Nile valley, has ceased, affecting
not only the immediate areas but the coastline and
the Mediterranean offshore waters. The vast wet-
lands of southern Iraq have been heavily drained,
destroying the landscape and culture of the people
who once lived there, and even today these areas
are contracting due to upstream dams and water
extraction. Patchwork landscapes have been con-
verted to industrial agriculture in wide areas of
North Africa, the Levant, and Turkey.
Coastal areas have undergone rapid develop-
ment in a few areas - tourism is a major driving
force in Turkey, the Sinai Peninsula, and parts of
North Africa. Around the Arabian Peninsula wide
areas of coastal land have been altered by urban
and industrial growth, as well as by the extensive
development of the petroleum industry.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Efforts to protect the landscape go back to ancient
history - there are records from Pliny the Elder of
efforts to administer forests, including programs
of wardens, tree planting, and the setting aside
of areas for wildlife. The Roman Emperor Hadrian
(AD 117-1381 was reported to have demanded
protection for some of the remaining cedar forests
on Mount Lebanon (though only a few remnants
remain today).
One traditional form of land management,
known as at henna {hima, hurah, or ahmia], has
been used for more than 2 000 years, and was given
a clearer legal standing by the Prophet Mohammed.
This involves the setting aside of large tracts of
rangeland and restricting their use to prevent
overgrazing. In 1969, it was estimated that there
were more than 3 000 hema in Saudi Arabia. A later
survey in 198^, conducted in the mountain areas
west of the country (where most of the hema
261
The world's protected areas
F-
Source: UNEP-WCMC
North Africa and the Middle East
1500
1 200 —
900
600
300
I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^)
I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km')
- - ■ ■ ■
1880'85'90'95 19aO'05'1015'2Q253035'4a'45 '50 55 60 ■45'70 '75 80 85 90 ■95 2000 05
North Africa and the Middle East: Growth of protected areas network, 1880-2005
existed), found only 71 hema, under varying degrees
of protection. Many of these have been now been
formally recognized, however, and are included in
the statistics below. Islann, which is the predom-
inant religion across the region, preaches respect
for creation, and in a few places this has been used
to support conservation efforts. Hunting reserves
dating bacl< to 12^0 were established at Lake
Ichkeul in Tunisia.
Many more forest reserves and hunting
reserves were declared in the 18th and 19th
centuries when wide parts of this region fell under
the Ottoman Empire. Protected areas focused more
on biodiversity, however, have been slow to catch
on. Some were established under French colonial
rule in North Africa in the 1920s and 1930s, but the
legislation behind these has largely been repealed
post-independence.
Historically, and in present times, war and civil
unrest have affected large parts of the region, and
ongoing occupation and unrest in countries such as
Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Iraq,
and Afghanistan are preventing the establishment
and secure management of protected areas.
North Africa and the Middle East: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1880-2005
1000
800 —
600 —
400 —
200 —
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered Into WDPA
1880'85'90'95190005'10'15'20'25'30'35'40'45 '50 '55 '60'65'70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05
263
The world's protected areas
Areas of North Africa and the Middle East protected (by country), 2005
Country/territories
Afghanistan
Land area Ikm^l
652 090
Total protected area Ikm^l
2 186
Total
number of sites
7
Algeria
2 381 740
119 726
26
Bahrain
690
60
4
Cyprus
9 250
920
19
Egypt
1 001 450
103 939
48
Iran, Islamic Republic of
1 633 190
112 878
142
Irag
438 320
5
8
Israel'
21 060
4 145
288
Jordan
89 210
9 734
36
Kuv^ait
17 820
597
7
Lebanon
10 400
78
24
Libyan Arab Jamahinya
1 759 540
2 209
12
Morocco
446 550
6 107
35
Oman
212 460
29 828
6
Qatar
11 000
137
13
Saudi Arabia
2 149 690
826 432
81
Syrian Arab Republic
185 180
3 583
28
Tunisia
163610
2 579
42
Turkey
774 820
3 3532
474
United Arab Emirates
83 600
4559
19
Western Sahara
266 000
18 889
1
Yemen
527 970
527 970
4
1 Under the current, volatile, political situation, the Palestinian territories have only limited autonomy and protected areas largely (all
under the control of Israel, where they are listed in this table.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
Most protected areas have been established since
the 197Qs and 1980s. Today there are 1 324
protected areas in the region which cover an estim-
ated 10 percent of the land area. The protection sta-
tistics, however, are heavily dominated by a small
number of very large sites. If the two largest sites
(both Category VI Wildlife Management Areas in
Saudi Arabia) are excluded, the proportion of the
region which is protected drops to around 4 percent,
making it one of the most poorly protected regions
in the world.
The large number of sites with no lUCN
category represent a broad mix, including sites
which probably offer only low levels of protection
(recreation zones, game reserves, wetland zones,
hunting reserves, and forest reserves), but also
including a considerable number of sites which are
in all likelihood well protected. These include
nature reserves, marine reserves, and national
parks in countries for which information on lUCN
management categories is not available.
It is readily apparent from the national-level
statistics that the total area protected in different
countries is highly varied. While a few countries
[Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia)
have extensive protected areas, often in well-
developed networks, a much greater number of
countries have only a few small sites. Afghanistan,
Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Morocco, Qatar, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the
United Arab Emirates, and the Yemen all have less
than 2 percent of their land area within protected
areas. Even where there are protected areas there
remain problems of management and enforcement.
Land ownership is a far more complex issue in
this region than in many parts of the world. Large
numbers of mobile peoples live across the region
and their lifestyles of shifting pastoralism require
open access, at least to the drier parts of the region.
Most protected areas recognize this, and allow for
continued access - there are fewer sites in lUCN
Categories l-ll in this region, and even some of the
well-known Category II sites such as the Arabian
Oryx Sanctuary in Oman and the Tassili N'Ajjer
National Park in Algeria have resident human
populations. Some level of continued human use
is entirely compatible within most of these areas.
ZU
North Africa and the Middle East
but levels of protection may not allow for sufficient
control of problenns such as overgrazing and
unsustainable hunting.
Other forms of protection
One of the best know/n forms of protection, the al
hema system described above, is still important in
some areas, and indeed has been given legal
recognition in places. Even without such explicit
protection, the nomadic or mobile peoples who
are widespread across the region often practice a
variety of measures to ensure environmental and
livelihood sustainability. In many cases these
peoples and their traditional activities have
created or modified the particular biodiversity and
landscape values of these areas over centuries.
While changes to traditional societies may
be reducing the effectiveness of such lifestyles
in maintaining landscapes and biodiversity,
there is an increasing number of examples
of mobile peoples becoming more actively
involved in conservation.
One example of this is that of the Kuhi sub-
tribe of Qashqai nomadic pastoralists in southern
Iran which has developed more effective internal
organization and is now requesting government
support for the continued traditional use and
maintenance of its tribal lands, including an
important wetland, as a community-conserved
area. In another example, however, the Harasis
tribal peoples in Oman took a leading role in the
reintroduction and protection of the Arabian oryx in
the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary. Their efforts have not
been successful however, oryx numbers have
declined dramatically since 1996, due to poaching
and habitat degradation, while 90% of the site is
about to loose its protected status, with opportunies
for hydrocarbon prospecting in the site adding a
further level of threat.
Another form of protection is the de facto
protection provided by the landscape itself. Harsh
environments, where human activities are scarce,
such as dry desert and mountain landscapes,
dominate a large part of this region. Such areas
have been spared many of the impacts faced in
more humid and productive parts of the world.
International sites
Only about half of the countries in the region are
actively involved in any of the major international
protected areas agreements and programs. In
terms of the total number of sites, the Ramsar
North Africa and the Middle East: Protected areas
network by lUCN category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area Ikm^J
la
28
3A96
lb
2
31
II
71
215 87i
II
50
12 432
IV
269
69 806
V
162
1U762
VI
30
790 662
No category
712
78 687
Total
1 324
1 285 749
North Africa and the Middle East: Protected areas
network by lUCN category (percentage of total
area), 2005
No Category 16%)
VI (62%)
II (17%)
,111(1%)
'."^ IV (5%)
V (9%)
North Africa and the Middle East: Number of
protected areas by lUCN category, 2005
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-J I I _L
la lb
III IV V VI category
265
The world's protected areas
North Africa and the Middle East: Internationally
protected areas, 2005
Country
Biosphere reserves
Algeria
No. of
sites
6
Protected
area [km^l
73 547
Eqypt
2
24 558
Iran, Islamic Republic of
9
27 534
Israel
1
266
Jordan
1
308
Lebanon
1
523
Morocco
2
97 542
Tunisia
U
756
Turkey
1
272
Yemen
1
26 816
TOTAL
28
252 121
Ramsar sites
Algeria
LP
29 596
Bahrain
2
68
Cyprus
2
38
Egypt
2
1 057
Iran, Islamic Republic of
22
14811
Israel
2
4
Jordan
1
74
Lebanon
/,
11
Libyan Arab Jamahinya
2
1
Morocco
2U
2 720
Syrian Arab Republic
1
100
Tunisia
1
126
Turkey
12
1 796
TOTAL
117
50401
World Heritage sites
Algeria
1
80 000
Eqypt
1
259
Oman'
1
27 500
Tunisia
1
126
Turkey
2
96
TOTAL
6
107 981
1 In August 2007, m the first case of its kind in the history of the
World Heritage Convention, the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was
removed from the World Heritage List, based on collapsing oryx
numbers, increasing threats and a decision to degazette 90%
This change has not been incorporated into the statistics in this
volume
Convention is clearly very important - indeed the
convention was first agreed in Ramsar, Iran, in
1971. Both Iran and Algeria have been heavily
involved in designating sites under this convention.
Only six natural and mixed World Heritage
sites have been declared to date. The largest, the
Tassili N'Ajjer National Park in Algeria, also
incorporates a biosphere reserve and Ramsar site.
It is somewhat representative of the tight inter-
linkage between people and environment in the
region. The site includes some of the most exten-
sive and best-preserved prehistoric cave art in the
world, spanning a period from 8 000 to 1 500 years
ago. It also includes relict flora and fauna in an
"island" of relatively high diversity in the central
Sahara Desert.
The marine waters of the region are almost
entirely incorporated into three UNEP Regional
Seas Programmes with associated conventions:
Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention); the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden (Jeddah Conventicnl; and the
Arabian Gulf and Arabian Sea IROPME Sea Area,
Kuwait Convention). While all of these are supp-
ortive of conservation measures, only one is actively
promoting the development of protected areas: the
Mediterranean Action Plan has a specific protocol
calling on states to designate Mediterranean
Specially Protected Areas.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The WCPA Regional Action Plan for the region
identifies the following priorities for improving the
planning and management of protected areas
within the region.
Training and capacity to manage
Lack of skilled staff is a major constraint on the
effective establishment and management of
protected areas. The management of many pro-
tected areas falls below acceptable international
standards. Such disciplines as protected area
planning and management, wildlife management,
and environmental sociology are not yet widely
recognized by the region's academic institutions.
One training center has recently been established in
the region, but there are almost no university
courses or degree programs in the subjects most
closely related to protected area management.
Skills are particularly needed in the following
areas: involvement of local stakeholders; conflict
resolution; planning and management of protected
areas including marine protected areas; application
of information arising from research and monit-
oring programs; and development of environmental
awareness and education programs. The develop-
ment of skills must embrace legal and socio-
economic as well as the ecological aspects of
protected area management.
266
North Africa and the Middle East
The primary focus of training must be on those
directly involved in the management of protected
areas, such as upper-level managers and admin-
istrators, middle-level managers, researchers,
rangers, and tourist guides. However, there are
other important target groups. These should
include decision makers and legislators who work
in other agencies but whose decisions may
influence the establishment and management of
protected areas. They should also include local
stakeholders, educators, women, and youth.
Legislation
The legislative basis for protected areas is still weak
in the region. Even though most countries have
some protected area legislation, others do not have
enough provisions to make creative use of the
region's rich heritage of traditional institutions and
indigenous conservation practices. There are also
few provisions to involve local citizens as partici-
pants in the establishment and management of
protected areas, or to ensure that any benefits gen-
erated from the use of protected areas be equitably
shared with the local people. In many instances,
implementation and enforcement are given
insufficient attention.
Pilot protected areas
There is an acute need to expand the protected area
systems to represent those ecosystems where
there is no protection, and to conserve endangered
endemic and relict species of plants and animals,
as well as species of special ecological, economic,
or cultural value. Especially important is the need to
conserve key sites of biological productivity -
wetlands, mountains, and woodlands, and coastal
sites - that constitute the habitats of the majority of
the region's flora and fauna.
Equally great is the need to manage
protected areas, or suitable parts of them, in a
manner that brings sustainable and tangible
benefits to the local people who have in many
cases been disadvantaged by their establishment.
Such benefits will give these people incentives to
become partners in conservation.
Broad agreement and commitment to these
objectives exist among conservation agencies
within the region. Nonetheless there is a need for
highly successful pilot or "model" protected areas
that are effective in conserving the region's
biological diversity and at the same time dem-
onstrate how community participation in the
management of protected areas can bring
tangible sustainable benefits.
Ecotourism
One of the most promising ways for protected areas
to generate tangible and sustainable benefits is
from nature-based tourism. Ecotourism can provide
a meaningful incentive and economic justification
for conservation, as it depends on the maintenance
of unspoiled nature and thriving communities of
wild plants and animals. In addition, it can generate
an influential and articulate clientele who can serve
as advocates for the conservation of protected
areas. If it is not managed very carefully, however,
nature-based tourism tends to degrade the very
resources upon which it depends, and this has been
happening in the region.
According to the World Tourism Organization
(WTO), one of five major tourism trends will be an
important growth in adventure tourism and in
ecotourism. The same organization also forecasts
solid growth in cultural tourism, and North Africa
and the Middle East are among the regions where
this is expected to happen in the near future.
It is, therefore, critical that tourism be
carefully planned to ensure that such developments
and activities do not compromise the natural and
cultural values for which protected areas were
established in the first place. This can only be
ensured through effective management of these
areas. Emphasis also needs to be placed on the
development of strong partnerships between
protected area agencies and tourism agencies,
including commercial operators.
Natural and cultural
landscapes throughout
the Middle East remain
poorly covered by the
protected areas
network.
267
The world's protected areas
Northern Eurasia
Armenia, Azerbaijan. Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Moldova. Russian
Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Contributor: N. Daniiina
Peschanaya Bay, Lake
Baikal, Pribalkal
National Park, Russia.
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The Northern Eurasia region is located from 20 to
190°E, and from 48 to 90°N, extending from the
Barents, Baltic, and Black Seas in the west to the
Pacific Ocean in the east, and from the Arctic Ocean
in the north to the Caucasus and Pamir Mountains
in the south. It is one of the largest WCPA regions,
with a total land area of over 22 million km^.
The region encompasses all of the landscape/
climatic zones of the temperate and Arctic regions
of the northern hemisphere: Arctic tundra,
coniferous, mixed, and broadleaf forest, steppe,
semi-desert, desert, and subtropics. These zones
exist in tracts that are larger and less disturbed
than in most other regions, and the northern Arctic
PArnold/SliU Pictures
regions are home to some of the largest stretches
of wilderness in the world.
The region has an extremely varied relief,
marked by vast plains covering much of Siberia and
the Turanian Plain (around the Aral Sea). Elevation
ranges from 132 meters below sea level to 7 495
meters above sea level, and mountain ranges
include part of the Carpathian Mountains and the
Urals in the west, the Caucasus between the Black
and Caspian Seas, the Tian Shan to the south, and
other ranges in southern and eastern Siberia. Near
the southern borders of the region these mountains
encompass a broad variety of ecosystems: glacial-
nival, alpine, subalpine, mountain forest, meadow,
steppe, and desert. There are a number of active
volcanoes in the far east along the Kamchatka
Peninsula, marking the edge of the Eurasian Plate.
There is an extensive coast along the Arctic
Ocean, and offshore some large island systems -
much of this coast is ice-bound for large parts of the
year There is also a long Pacific coastline, facing
the Bering Sea and with the complex formation of
the Kamchatka Peninsula, Sakhalin Island, and the
Kuril Islands almost entirely enclosing the Sea of
Okhotsk. In the southwest of the region are found
the northern coasts of the Black Sea and most of
the coastline of the Caspian Sea. Inland water
bodies include a great number of rivers and lakes,
some of them the world's largest by length and by
water volume, as well as vast wetlands.
With such a rich array of ecosystems, the
268
Northern Eurasia
F Bruemmer/Stlii Pictures
Introduced Przewalski horses \Equus freus przewalskii] on the steppe of Askania Nova Biosphere Reserve, Ukraine.
269
The world's protected areas
Source: UNEP-WCMC
Northern Eurasia
1200 I—
1000
800 —
E 600 —
400 —
200
I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^l
I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^l
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I
11
189900 1905 '10 '15 '20 25 '30 35 '40 %5 50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 ■95 2000'05
North Eurasia: Growth of protected areas network, 1899-2005
region holds a great wealth of biodiversity. However,
the vast size of many of these landscapes means
that relatively few have been registered in investi-
gations of concentrations of biodiversity. There are
nine centers of plant diversity and only one endemic
bird area Ithe Caucasus). Large tracts of the region
have been singled out for wider ecological
importance within 19 key ecoregions Ithe WWF
Global 200). The region is also exceptionally
valuable as a regulator of biosphere processes that
maintain ecological stability on a global scale,
notably as a major carbon sink.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The modern history of conservation practice in the
countries of Northern Eurasia is believed to have
started in 1886, when Count V. Dzhedushitskii
dedicated a portion of his estate (now in the
Ukraine) for the preservation of an old-growth
forest and the nesting sites of the white-tailed sea
North Eurasia: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1899-2005
15 000 r—
H Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
■ Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
.-._- I dates based on date entered into WDPA
9 000
6 000
3 000
-_ HL
1899'001905'10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 200005
271
The world's protected areas
eagle. In 1898, Baron Friedrich Falz-Fein fenced off
500 hectares of virgin steppe on his estate Askania
Nova in the vicinity of Kherson, Ukraine.
In 1909, the zoologist Grigorii Kozhevnikov
outlined the ecological principles of protected area
establishment, emphasizing their Importance as
baseline areas. Some of the first large nature res-
erves [zapovedniks] were established around Lake
Baikal in 1916, just before the Russian Revolution.
In 1917, the geographer Venlamin Semenov-
Tian-Shanskii proposed the first long-term plan for
the development of a network of zapovedniks
representing all the biodiversity of Russian nature
Isee Shtilmark 20031. Further plans for a nationviiide
netvi/ork of protected areas were developed over
time, most recently in 1989 IZabellna, Isaeva-Petrova
and Karaseva, 19891, but these were typically
summaries, while most of the network planning
was undertaken at the level of the Individual
republics. Some of these proposals survived the
collapse of the USSR and were eventually put Into
practice in the newly Independent states.
Beginning in the 1920s, the Soviet zapovedn//<s
started implementing a unified program of long-
term scientific research and monitoring. Today,
some of them can boast of having conducted
regular ecological observations (known as the
'chronicles of nature'! for more than 60 years.
In the 1970s, the USSR witnessed the
establishment of Its first national parks: in Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Armenia. However, the
development of national park systems became
most active in the years following the dissolution of
the USSR. Zapovedniks and national parks are
established to protect the most valuable eco-
systems. Most are federal or national entities, with
state-employed staff, including rangers, scientists,
educators, as well as administrative personnel.
Another traditional type of protected area In
northern Eurasia Is the zakaznik (nature refuge)'.
Traditionally these were established as hunting
refuges, dedicated to the propagation of particular
game animals. However, this evolved into a more
Inclusive vision. Today, nature refuges may focus
on particular zoological, botanical, hydrologlcal,
geological, or other features, or be designated to
protect entire landscapes. Even more numerous
In these countries, and encompassing an even
greater variety of objects, are nature monuments.
Beginning in the 1970s, efforts began to
Integrate individual protected areas into a unified
network. Under a system of centralized planning it
was possible to develop tiered systems of protection
for large territories and to place these within the
wider planning schemes for different administrative
units. With the drive towards decentralized plann-
ing, the Implementation of such Integrated systems
has now become more difficult. The majority of
zapovedniks has also been subject to standardized
ecological monitoring, dating back more than 60
years. Most have scientific staff, while state Insp-
ectors (rangers) carry out protection of zapovedniks
and national parks.
Today, the protected area networks In all the
former Soviet republics suffer from limited state
funding, directly linked to the difficult economic
circumstances now prevalent In the region. In many
countries the rate of designation of new protected
areas has decreased or even stopped since 1990.
Numerous conservation non-governmental organi-
zations have emerged, and are now assisting state
institutions In supporting the existing protected
areas and developing protected area networks in
various ways. Including by generating funds from
both domestic and International sources.
THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK
Northern Eurasia has the second largest land area
of any WCPA region and, although there are 17 697
sites In the WDPA, covering almost 1 .76 million km^,
protected areas represent less than 8 percent of the
land area. Throughout the former Soviet Union, the
term specially protected natural area (SPNA) has
been applied to the range of protected areas
developed in each state. Most of the old Soviet
categories of protected area still remain and. in
general, there are strong similarities In the
protected area nomenclature between countries:
a state zapovedniks (nature reserves] (lUCN
Category I);
a national parks (lUCN Category II);
n state nature refuges [zakaznik'] (lUCN
Category IVl;
Q nature monuments (III).
Most of the countries have other categories of
protected area, for example nature parks (lUCN
Category III, nature sanctuaries, and refuges (e.g.
forest, botanical, zoological, complex - Category IV).
The administrative systems for protected
areas are also similar In many countries. For the
most part the national parks and zapovedniks are
managed by state agencies, typically environment
ministries, but also agriculture, forestry, or hunting
272
I The term zakaznik is derived from the Russian word zakaz. which can be translated into English as prohibition'.
Northern Eurasia
departments. Several countries also have a snnaller
number of sites administered by scientific
institutions, sucti as the Russian Academy of
Sciences. In most cases, nature monuments, nature
refuges, and other small sites are administered at
subnational or local levels.
The very large number of sites in three
countries - Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine - are
dominated by locally or nationally designated
nature monuments and nature refuges. Typically
the former represent very small sites Imostly
Category llll, and so the area statistics show quite a
different pattern, with Category III sites making up
only 1 percent of the area, and Category IV sites
dominating the statistics. Northern Eurasia also
has the largest area of strict nature reserves (la) of
any region - these are largely the zapovednik, a
protected area category somewhat emblematic of
the region - inviolable nature reserves dedicated to
the permanent protection of the native biota within
their boundaries.
In Armenia there has been little growth of
the protected areas network since 1990. The
Armenian Ministry of Nature Protection IMNPI is
the governmental agency responsible for the
management and coordinated development of the
national network of protected areas, but a small
number of sites is administered by the Ministry of
Agriculture, and one by the National Academy of
Sciences. Azerbaijan has also shown a very slow
growth of protected areas since 1990. The State
Committee on Ecology and Nature Management
Supervision of Azerbaijan administers the protected
areas, and most sites are staffed.
Belarus has a considerable number of
protected areas, and has continued to add to the
network to the present day. There is an active
ongoing program of scientific research in national
parks and zapovedniks. In Kazakhstan the general
supervision of zapovedniks, refuges, national parks,
nature monuments, and genetic reserves is carried
out by the State Committee on Forestry, Fisheries
and Hunting of the Ministry of Agriculture, although
their daily management is assigned to the regional
authorities. The protection of the state nature
refuges is carried out by the Forest Watch service,
and by members of the Association on Hunting and
Fishing, while national nature monuments are
managed by their landholders.
Several governmental agencies are involved in
protected area management in Kyrgyzstan, includ-
ing the Ministry of Environmental Protection (nature
North Eurasia: Protected areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area (km^)
la
195
362 219
lb
_
_
1
66
125A16
111
11321
24 ao
IV
5 256
841 562
V
/.07
14 785
VI
54
84 216
No category
398
302 460
Total
17 697
1 755 098
North Eurasia: Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area), 2005
No Category (17%
VI I5%1
V|1%1 '■
I / '01^^^^
la 121%)
II (7%)
-111(1%)
IV M%)
North Eurasia: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
^000
2 000
la II
No
IV V VI category
273
The world's protected areas
Areas of North Eurasia protected (by country], 2005
Country
Armenia
Land area Ikm^)
29 800
Total protected area Ikm^l
2 991
Total number of sites
28
Azerbaiian
86 600
6 328
42
Belarus
207 600
13 153
904
Georgia
69 700
3 040
36
Kazakiistan
2 lU 900
76 275
76
Kyrqyzstan
199 900
7 152
93
Moldova. Republic of
33 850
473
63
Russian Federation
17 075/,00
1 556 904
11 181
Tajikistan
U3 100
26 029
23
Turkmenistan
488 100
19 782
29
Ukraine
603 700
22 468
5 198
Uzbekistan
447 400
20 503
24
Note: Wtiile the overall figures are accurate, it appears tfiat there is some under-reporting of smaller sites, with several hundred
nature monuments and nature refuges missing from countries such as Belarus. Tajikistan, and Ukraine
reserves!, the State Forestry Agency IKyrgyz Ata
National Park, nature parks, forest and some
botanical refuges!, the Recreation Department
lAlaarcha Nature Park], the Main Department on
Management and Regulation of Hunting Resources,
and the Hunters and Fishermen Union (hunting
refuges!. Other nature refuges and nature monu-
ments are administered by municipalities.
In Moldova the Department of Environmental
Protection is responsible for the supervision of the
national protected areas network, although the
State Forest Service and the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Ecological Control manage some
sites, while others are administered by the local
authorities and funded from local budgets.
A few hundred sites in Russia fall under
federal control, mostly of the Ministry of Natural
Resources of the Federation. These include almost
all zapovedniks and national parks. In contrast, the
majority of nature refuges and nature monuments
are administered at regional and local levels.
Tajikistan has relatively few protected areas,
although there are an additional 162 nature
monuments that are not recorded in the WDPA.
All large lakes in Tajikistan are included in
zapovedniks or refuges. Nature reserves and
nature refuges are administered by the State
Forestry Enterprise, and national parks by the
Ministry of Nature Protection. Law enforcement
was weak during the civil war of 1992-93, and a
lack of international support, political instability,
as well as serious levels of pollution in the Takob
River from the Takobskii mining plant, are
threatening protected areas in the country.
Ukrainian protected areas are administered
by a range of different bodies including: the Min-
istry of Environment and Natural Resources; State
Committee on Forestry; National Academy of Sci-
ences; Agrarian Academy of Sciences of Ukraine;
Taras Shevchenko National University; and the
Ministry of Education. In Uzbekistan, most sites are
administered by the State Committee on Nature
Protection, while the Ministry of Agriculture and
Water Management administers six nature reserves
and two national parks. Overall supervision of
regime enforcement in SPNA is exercised by the
State Committee on Nature Protection.
International sites
All Commonwealth of Independent States ICISI
countries have ratified the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, and other
international agreements. The Ramsar Convention
has been widely adopted by countries across the
region, and in several countries new sites have
regularly been added since 2000, including all five
sites in Tajikistan, which were designated in 2001 .
The biosphere reserves across the region
include some very large sites, in particular the
53 000 km2 Tzentralnosibirskii Biosphere Reserve
in Russia, and the 43 000 km^ Issyk Kul (also a
Ramsar site! in Kyrgyzstan, designated in 2001.
World Heritage sites are confined to two
countries, but cover a broad geographic range. The
Russian sites include large areas of the central and
eastern parts of the region, such as Lake Baikal -
the world's oldest and deepest freshwater lake; the
Volcanoes of Kamchatka; the Golden Mountains of
274
Northern Eurasia
Altai; and the Central Sikhote-Alin mountains on
ttie coast of the Sea of Japan. In the west of the
region a number of nationally designated protected
areas have also been awarded European Diplomas
(Type Al by the Council of Europe, including
Berezinskiy Zapovednik and Belarus' Belovezhskaya
Pushcha National Park; four zapovedniks in Russia,
and the Carpathian zapovedniks in the Ukraine.
There are also many important transboundary
protected areas within this region and extending
into neighboring regions. These include the
Druzhba IFnendshipl Nature Reserve, between
Russia and Finland; the Dauria Nature Reserve
between Russia, Mongolia, and China; Khanka Lake
between Russia and China; the Bolshekhekhtsirsky
Nature Reserve (Russia! with the Three Parallel
Rivers Nature Reserve in China; and the Pasvik
Nature Reserve between Russia, Finland, and
Norway. Agreements have been elaborated
between Georgia and Russia, and between Georgia
and Azerbaijan, to facilitate coordinated
management of a number of East Caucasian
protected areas. Two Ukrainian protected areas
form part of the tri-nation East Carpathian
Biosphere Reserve with sites in Poland and
Slovakia. The Danube Delta has also received
particular attention and there is a biosphere reserve
between Ukraine and Romania, while in 2000
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, and Moldova adopted a
declaration on cooperation for the establishment of
the Lower Danube Green Corridor
Another ongoing project is the Global
Environment Facility IGEF] Central Asian
transboundary project 'Establishment of protected
areas network for biodiversity conservation in the
Western Tien Shan'. The project plans the creation
of a transboundary protected area to include
Kazakhstan's Aksu-Djabagly Nature Reserve, Sary-
Chelek and Besh-Aral Nature Reserves in
Kyrgyzstan, and Chatkal Nature Reserve and
Ugam-Chatkal National Park in Uzbekistan. It is
supported by bilateral agreements between the
national governments and the World Bank.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The regional program for WCPA has identified a
number of key issues, which in many ways highlight
the future needs for protected areas in the region.
Its main objectives include:
Q Increasing the participation of protected area
managers in decision making at local,
regional, national, and global levels;
North Eurasia: Internationally protected areas, 2005
Country
Biosphere reserves
Belarus'
No. of
sites
Protected
area (km^j
3 533
Kyrgyzstan
A3 355
Russian Federation
37
252 857
Turkmenistan
346
Ukraine'
3 324
Uzbekistan
574
TOTAL
50
303 989
Ramsar sites
Armenia
A 922
Azerbaijan
3
2 321
Belarus
8
2 831
Georgia
2
342
Kazakhstan
2
6 085
Kyrgyzstan
2
6 397
Moldova, Republic of
3
947
Russian Federation
35
1 03 238
Tajikistan
5
946
Turkmenistan
1
1 887
Ukraine
33
7 447
Uzbekistan
1
313
TOTAL
97
137 676
World Heritage sites
Belarus^
1
50
Russian Federation^
8
209 970
TOTAL
9
210 020
Ttiree biosptiere reserves in ttie Ukraine and one in Belarus
are transboundary sites with countries in the WCPA Europe
region
The Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest World
Heritage Site is transboundary with Poland IWCPA Europe!,
The Uvs Nuur Basin World Heritage Site is transboundary
with (v/longolia IWCPA East Asial.
Creation of a favorable image of protected
areas and raising the involvement of the
wider public in the work of protected areas;
Increasing cooperation and the exchange of
information and experiences between
protected areas in Northern Eurasia and
elsewhere;
Strengthening the role of protected areas in
conserving biodiversity and maintaining the
region's ecological stability Establishing
an ecologically representative network of
protected areas for the region;
Enhancing the role of protected areas in
275
The world's protected areas
Mount Kazbak,
Caucasus, Georgia.
environmental education and awareness;
□ Improving the economic basis of protected
area activities;
a Improving the institutional and legal
framework for protected area activities;
While it is clearly necessary to increase the total
area of protected areas (as a percentage of national
territory, but also ensuring representativeness),
many other strategies must be employed. Critical
among these will be: improving existing legislation;
raising the level of involvement and cooperation
between government agencies, NGOs, and inter-
national bodies; improving environmental education
and outreach; developing links with the private
sector, industry, and particularly ecotourism; and
the establishment of stronger economic bases,
including the creation of trust funds.
276
South Asia
South Asia
Bangladesh, Bhutan,
British Indian Ocean Territory (UK), India,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Contributors: S. Bhatt, A. Kothari, P. Tuladhar
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The South Asia region includes the countries of the
Indian subcontinent, together with the remote
island archipelagos of the central Indian Ocean. To
the north the region is bounded by mountains, while
to the west it borders the Arabian Sea and the
Laccadive Sea, with the Bay of Bengal to the east.
The mountain borders stretch from the
Makran Range in Pakistan to the great sweep of the
Himalayas running from northern Pakistan along
the borders of northern India and dominating the
landscapes of Nepal and Bhutan. The Himalayas
have been formed by the collision of two gigantic
land masses, the Indian subcontinent and the Asian
continent, which began about 70 million years ago.
In geological terms, they are still relatively young
and still growing, and the region is prone to
earthquakes. The main range, or Great Himalayas,
includes many of the world's highest peaks
(including Sagarmatha or Mount Everest,
8 848 meters]. There is also a number of other
ranges, many with distinctive geological and
ecological features. Vegetation is highly varied
through these mountain ranges, influenced by both
altitude and rainfall. The natural vegetation is
subtropical in the lower foothills, but dominated in
most areas by moist temperate forests with both
broadleaf evergreen and coniferous trees. There
are extensive areas of such forests, particularly in
Bhutan. Higher still, the forests give way to alpine
species and scrub before the bare slopes and
permanent snow and ice. North of the Himalaya,
are the vast cold desert areas of Ladakh and Spiti,
bordering Tibet.
To the south of these mountain ranges are vast
level plains, collectively described as the Indo-
Gangetic Plain, bordering the Indus River in
Pakistan, and in the center and east including the
great plain of the Ganges, which flows for more than
2 800 km out to the Bay of Bengal. These lands were
once forested, but for millennia have been cleared
for human agriculture.
The Thar Desert dominates in northwest
India and eastern Pakistan, with shifting sands,
salt flats, rocky deserts, and sparse shrubs. Most
of central and southern India is made up of the
Deccan Plateau - a wide undulating terrain built
largely of ancient rock, but also with more recent
volcanic intrusions. Hilly or low mountain ranges
fringe both the western and eastern edges of the
subcontinent (the Eastern and Western Ghats).
Forests are again the native vegetation, but less
Tigers [Panthera tigris],
India.
277
The world's protected areas
■36"N
P.^^'
P.\K]SBTAN
f
'-"^a^E-V
79(°E
SffE
93fe
36°-N-
^&^>.^:
'vS^?/
'■y^*V^fe^
^W-^
%'
r
■ ) ,'
•''*^fe^
• y *
^.jffS
Cf
g^*L_NEPAL -
BHUTAN
(
• »
•-^^
H^i^&Wfcji
•^^
22°N
1 1
tkf
" V ^'
BANGLADESfi
.4RiBIAXSEA
IXDIAN OCEAX
■IS-Jsl..
Ik?
-<>;
^i%^-' . -^
Andaman Islands (IND) tTi
Vs
British Indian Ocedfa
Territory (GBR)'
so 100 150km
r>30's
••rw
, 65°E
Source: UNEP-WCMC
.. v..
•' ■ \ULDn'ES
.. 72.°E ,i'_:.i#«;^
Nicobar Islands (IND) f
79^E-
-86°E-
93°E
278
South Asia
than 10 percent of the subcontinent as a whole is
now covered by forest. Sri Lanka has vegetation
very similar to the Deccan Plateau and the
Western Ghats.
The coastal and offshore waters of the
Arabian Sea are highly productive, although
overfishing is a problem, particularly close to the
coasts. The dominant feature in the offshore
waters is the Chagos Laccadive Ridge, a near-
continuous string of coral atolls and associated
islands, and shallow platforms. The Bay of Bengal
is another highly productive sea, with substantial
freshwater input, rich in nutrients, particularly in
the north. Mangrove forests are widespread along
these coasts, and include the Sundarbans,
probably the most extensive mangrove forest in the
world. In the far south-east of the region, India's
Andaman and Nicobar Islands are home to a
remarkable diversity of forest and marine
ecosystems. Although remote, the islands are
undergoing rapid immigration and population
pressure on natural ecosystems is high.
The species composition of the region is
influenced by both the Indo-Malayan Realm and,
over a smaller area towards the north, by the
Palearctic Realm. Some of the most important
centers for biodiversity or endemism are the
various mountain ranges, and especially the
western Himalayas, the flooded grasslands of the
Rann of Kutch, and the Western Ghats, which
house some of the only tropical rainforest in the
region. In many areas the total numbers of species
remain poorly known: for example, estimates of
the number of endemic plant species in the
Himalayas range from 2 500 to A 000. Marine
biodiversity is also high, particularly in coral reef
areas, although rates of endemism tend to be
relatively low.
The region is one of the world's most densely
populated, with a total population of over 1.37
billion, including the world's second most
populous country, India. Furthermore, population
growth rates are still high. A very large proportion
of the population remains rural, and agriculture
and pastoralism have transformed most of the
landscapes away from the steepest mountain
terrains. Ethnically and culturally the region is
highly diverse, with numerous religions, and
with lifestyles varying from wealthy urban
societies to traditional agricultural, and to tribal
groups whose lifestyles have remained largely
unchanged for centuries.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Human settlement and organized society have a
long history across the region, and local
communities have been practicing forms of natural
resource conservation and management for at least
three millennia. The first known recommendations
for protected areas are laid down in the
Arthashastra written by Kautilya at the end of the
fourth century BC, while the first known
government decree tor the protection of wildlife and
forests was set out by the Emperor Ashoka in the
year 252 BC in central India. Not long after this, in
Sri Lanka, King Devanampiyatissa also set up
wildlife sanctuaries. Religious beliefs, linked to
each of the main faiths in the region, have often
supported conservation and the protection of
features such as forests, or sacred groves, and
mountains - even today many sacred groves
remain. Maharajas and Mogul emperors
established many hunting reserves across the
region, and in the colonial era, further hunting and
forest reserves were established - many of these
now form the basis for the modern system of
protected areas.
Many of Sri Lanka's current forest reserves
date back to the end of the 19th century, such as
Nanda Devi and Valley of
Flowers National Parks
World Heritage Area,
India.
279
The world's protected areas
3bU
■ Cumulative area of sites withi known establishment date Ikm^)
300
_ H Cumulative area of sites viilh unknov^n establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm'l .
250
-
200
—
E
o
o
o
150
100
50
n
Ill
1875'80 85'90'951900'0510'15 20 25 '30 35 40 45 50 •55'60 '65 ^OTS •80'85 ■9a95 200a'05
South Asia: Growth of protected areas network, 1875-2005
Sinharaja Forest Reserve established in 1875, while
parts of the Bangladesh and Indian Sundarbans
were designated as forest reserves in 1878. The first
of the modern conservation-oriented protected
areas In the region were established in India and Sri
Lanka from the 1930s, including Corbett National
Park in India, established In 1936. During the
1960s-1970s, there was a rapid expansion In both
the number and size of protected areas;
Bangladesh established the Sunderbans South
Wildlife Rese^^/e In 1960; Pakistan, the Ras Koh
Wildlife Sanctuary in 1962; Bhutan, the Manas
Wildlife Sanctuary (now a national park] in 1966;
and Nepal, the Royal Chitwan National Park In 1973
Ipart of the area had been Included in a royal
hunting reserve since 18461. By contrast, the
Maldives and British Indian Ocean Territory did not
establish any protected areas until the late 1990s.
Although a number of sites extend to the
coast, the protection of open marine waters has
been very slow to come to the region. India has
some large sites, notably three marine national
South Asia: Growth In the number of protected areas, 1875-2005
1200
1000 —
800
£ 600
400
200
I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date,
dates based on date entered into WDPA
■ ■ ■ ■
1875'80'85'90'95190a'0510'15 '20 25 '30 '35 '40 '45 50 ■55'60 '65 ■70'75 •80'85'90'95 2000'05
280
South Asia
M GiUes/Bios/StiU Pictures
Indian rhinoceros [Rhinoceros unicornis] In Royal Chitwan National Parl<. Nepal, a World Heritage site.
281
The world's protected areas
Areas of South Asia protected (by country), 2005
Country/territories
Bangladesh
Land area (km^)
144 000
Total protected area (km^l
2 409
Total number of sites
21
Bhutan
47 000
12 408
9
British Indian
Ocean
Terntor/
60
1 374
6
India
3 287 260
178 282
662
Maldives
300
<1-
25
Nepal
147 180
25 621
22
Pakistan
796 100
75 311
208
Sn Lanka
65 610
14 877
264
parks, and there are small sites scattered across
the region. Even among the existing sites there are
problems associated with weak legal regimes or
poor enforcement. The dive sites' in the Maldives
have few regulations, and the large marine
protected areas in the British Indian Ocean
Territory, although closed to fishing, have
exempted the only commercial fishing that takes
place in the territory.
THE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK
The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAl
records 1217 protected areas covering 31 282 km^.
Most of this IS terrestrial and 6.9 percent of the
region's land surface is protected. This is the lowest
proportion of any inhabited WCPA region.
There are 184 marine protected areas
recorded for the region, but the total area of these is
the smallest of any WCPA region and also occupies
the smallest proportion of any region's maritime
boundaries, only 0.11 percent.
The majority of the protected areas in the
region are designated in Category IV, representing
just half of the total area protected. Category II sites
are also numerous, covering 22 percent of the total
protected area. Although there is a large number of
sites with no known lUCN category, they are
typically smaller
Despite the low regional average protected
area coverage, several countries in the region have
quite extensive protected area networks, notably Sri
Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan, and these incorporate
most major habitat types. Bhutan has the largest
coverage in the region: more than 25 percent of the
land area is protected, with corridors linking all
protected areas, and modest use by local people
within the protected areas. The protected areas of
Sri Lanka are also extensive: about 23 percent of the
total area is protected for biodiversity conservation,
with further large areas of natural forest reserved
for production purposes. Pakistan's protected areas
network, although extensive, fails to cover some
critically threatened ecosystems.
Nepal's protected areas cover 17 percent of its
total land area, with sites protecting historic,
natural, and cultural values. Recent developments
have included the introduction of Buffer Zone
Management Regulations (19961, allowing for the
designation of buffer zones around settlements,
agricultural lands, village open spaces, and other
land uses, intended to help communities adjacent to
protected areas (Sharma and Shaw, 19961. A new
category of protected area - conservation area - has
enabled communities and non-governmental
organizations to become more involved in collabo-
rative management with the government in pro-
tected areas such as Annapurna Conservation Area
and the Makalu-Barun National Park and
Conservation Area. Makalu-Barun was officially
established in 1992 to implement an innovative
conservation model integrating protected area
management and community development. The
2 330 km2 area ranges from tropical forests to ice-
bound mountain summits, and is the only protected
area on Earth with an elevation range of
8 000 meters [The Mountain Institute, 2004).
India has significantly expanded its protected
area network, although it still covers only about
5 percent of national territory. National reviews
have suggested that the network is not yet
representative of the biogeographic regions of the
country, and needs further expansion. In 2002, India
added two new categories of protected area:
community reserves and conservation reserves,
both of them allowing for much greater
participation by local people than the existing
national parks and sanctuaries.
Establishment and management of marine
protected areas tends to be weak in the region,
owing to insufficient attention from governments.
282
South Asia
and deficient funding and capacity building for
conservation. This is particularly notable in those
coastal areas where marine resources play a
critical role in human activities, through tourism or
fisheries, and v^here more sustainable manage-
ment, including protected areas if managed in
participation with local people, could greatly
improve the livelihoods.
Other forms of protection
There are a large number of formal and informal
arrangements for protecting biodiversity in South
Asia. Many community forests, forest reserves,
private forests, buffer zones, jungle corridors, and
others are included in the WDPA, but it is likely that
some may have been missed. There are also
thousands of community conserved areas, either
traditional ones continuing into the present, or new
initiatives. These include sacred groves and
wetlands, catchment forests, village wetlands,
coastal and freshwater river stretches, and bird and
turtle nesting sites. Most of these are not yet
incorporated into PA systems or into the WDPA.
International sites
There is involvement in international agreements
on protected areas across the region. By 2005, 54
sites were designated under the Ramsar
Convention, including a number of very large sites
such as the 5 663 I<m2 Rann of Kutch and the U 728
km^ Indus Delta Ramsar Sites in Pakistan.
Biosphere reserves have not been widely
adopted across the region, despite the fact that
many nationally designated sites include
settlements and human activities, and there is
growing recognition of the use of buffers and
corridors, all principles widely used in biosphere
reserves. The largest site in the region is the
10 500km2 Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve in
India, an important coastal site incorporating
fishing villages, mangrove forests, coral reefs, and
seagrass beds.
One site, the Sundarbans mangrove forests
between India and Bangladesh, Is covered under a
complex array of protection. Including national
protection In a range of protected areas in both
countries, a biosphere reserve In India, a Ramsar
site In Bangladesh, and World Heritage sites in
both countries. Although the existing natural World
Heritage sites In the region Include some of the
most spectacular and ecologically important
features In the region, from Sagarmatha to
South Asia: Protected
areas network by lUCN
category, 2005
lUCN category
Total
Total
sites
area
(km21
la
19
2 490
lb
2
825
II
133
67 341
111
-
-
IV
661
160 877
V
11
1394
VI
12
26 126
No category
379
51 228
Total
1 217
310 281
South Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN
category (percentage of total area), 2005
No Category
117%
VI (8%)
la(1%l
II 122%)
IV 152%)
South Asia: Number of protected areas by lUCN
category, 2005
800
IV V VI category
283
The world's protected areas
South Asia: Internationally protected areas, 2005
Country.territories
Biosphere resen/es
India
No. of
sites
4
Protected
area \V.m>\
31 511
Pakistan
1
658
Sn Lanka
U
630
TOTAL
9
32 799
Ramsar sites
Bangladesh
2
6 112
British Indian
Ocean Territory 1
354
India
25
6 771
Nepal
k
235
Pakistan
19
13 436
Sn Lanka
3
85
TOTAL
54
26 993
World Heritag
Bangladesh
e sites
1
1 397
India
5
3 001
Nepal
2
2 080
Sn Lanka
1
113
TOTAL
6 591
the Sundarbans, there are relatively few sites
considering the vast size of South Asia.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The national biodiversity strategies and action plans
of various South Asian countries have stressed the
need to strengthen their protected area networks,
notably addressing neglected biomes such as
marine and freshwater systems. Most also stress
the need to move into more participatory forms of
management. These, as well as a number of other
measures, are considered necessary to strengthen
and improve the protected area network and to
safeguard the region's biodiversity. They include the
following items.
□ Protected areas must be linked into the larger
landscape and seascape, built into a broader
system of management for land and water
in which the various departments and
sectors are coordinated, and conservation and
sustainable use are achieved. One ongoing
attempt at this, which is providing valuable
lessons, is the Terai Arc Landscape program in
Nepal and India.
□ Collaborative management of protected areas
and buffer zones must be encouraged and
improved, in which local communities are
involved in decision making from the stage of
conceptualization through to their manage-
ment and monitoring. These same local
communities must also become substantial
beneficiaries of conservation.
Q Recognition and support must be given to
community conserved areas, in ways that the
relevant communities find appropriate.
□ Policies and programs for the sustainable use
of genetic/biological resources must be
established, incorporating systems for the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits accrued
from such use.
^ Indigenous knowledge and innovations should
be acknowledged and protected, and, where
relevant, incorporated in the conservation and
management system.
Q Development-related policies and programs
need to be reoriented to make them more
sensitive to conservation issues.
^ Management capacity for all staff, local
communities, and NGOs involved in protected
areas needs to be improved.
^ The public must be made more aware of the
benefits of conservation.
□ Research into the threats facing biodiversity,
including inappropriate development, invasive
alien species, climate change, and over-
exploitation, and into possible measures to
address these threats, must be strengthened.
A stronger engagement with the international site-
based conventions would also be desirable in
the region.
286
East Asia
East Asia
China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Japan, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Taiwan POC
Contributors: Shin Wang, J. Jamsramjav
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
This region covers a large part of the Asian
continent, from the Altai Mountains and the
Mongolian Plateau in the north, to the Tibetan
Plateau in the south. The coastline borders the
Japanese, Yellow, and East China seas in the east,
and the South China Sea in the southeast.
The continental land masses lie on the
Eurasian Tectonic Plate. Japan is located on the
margins betwe